5-4 MORALITY,
MENTAL DISORDERS, AND IQ
How do parents
decide to punish?
Parents are pretty quick to decide when to let their
children off the hook for dropping their Sippy cups, throwing a toy, or pulling
another child’s hair. Some parents laugh, some yell, some swat, and some use
time out. Some do it all in an unpredictable pattern. Parents seem to have some
built in sense of when a child knows
better.
Knowing better is the basis for holding
people accountable.
Kids will still go to time out for breaking a rule so
they’ll learn. But serious penalties are usually reserved for intentional rule
breaking that leads to measurable harm.
There’s something about age that makes us
think young children
are less responsible for what they do than
are older children.
When older children kill, some people want to prosecute
them as adults. Somehow we think age matters when it comes to all kinds of
rules.
How do cultures
decide to grant exemptions from a penalty?
The death penalty is constitutional in the U.S. But based
on a 2002 ruling (Atkins v. Virginia), people identified as mentally retarded were exempt because of
the U.S. constitutional language barring cruel and unusual punishment. Several
countries and some U.S. States have decided the death penalty is immoral. [The
older term mentally retarded has been
replaced by persons with an intellectual
disability.]
Several U.S. States (e.g., Florida) have relied on I.Q.
scores. The so called bright line has often been an IQ
score of 70. Score above you die now. Score below 70 you live in prison and die
there.
“Intellectual disability is a condition,
not a number.”
Justice
Anthony M. Kennedy
What is the role
of science and religion in matters of morality and law?
Courts often consider testimony from psychologists and
psychiatrists when deciding moral culpability. Science offers facts and ideas
about how well people can think about consequences and control their impulses.
In the current case, Nathalie Gilfoyle of the American Psychological Association
spokeswoman commented on the misunderstanding of interpretations of IQ scores
and the importance of considering adaptive functioning. But Justice Samuel A.
Alito Jr. was not pleased in what he saw as a decision to rely on professional
associations rather than public opinion.
When people base their moral reasoning on beliefs about
human nature, scientists can sometimes offer information that supports or
refutes those beliefs. Scientists make new discoveries and revise old theories.
And even when scientists agree about the facts, they may disagree about how to
interpret those facts.
Many people get their moral values from their religious
beliefs. For some, these rules are absolutes—not subject to change by earthly
judges. Rules are sacred commands that are most certainly not subject to human
wisdom as may come from the likes of psychologists and psychiatrists. Murder
and adultery are sins punishable by death. Here's an example from The Christian Post.
Thoughts
Age is important to morality. Age is
a common sense guideline for permitting people to exercise judgment. For the
most part it works well. There are exceptions. Intelligent people understand
that being 16, 18, or 21 is not the best guide for certain judgment-based freedoms.
Most of us know people in their 30s that are incredibly immature and probably
should not be driving, drinking alcohol, or handling a lethal weapon. We also
know mature young people who at age 15 or 17 demonstrate better judgment than
people legally permitted to a variety of things. We also know that intellectual abilities and concomitant judgment declines with age. But we don't know enough yet.
Intelligence is important to morality.
However we define intelligence, sometimes it is hard to decide on the right course of action. Some use reason to figure out some socially acceptable rationale to excuse wrongdoing. But others do think about discrimination, capital punishment, marriage and divorce, abortion, and surveillance. Thoughtful people are needed to help identify and weigh the factors involved in laws and policies that govern human behavior.
Rigid rules can lead to immorality.
Justice Kennedy described Florida’s rule about intelligence as rigid. Rules are
important and help people make quick decisions. Tough decisions require
thinking and as I mentioned above, it is clear that the highly intelligent justices at
the U.S. Supreme Court did not agree. Morality was decided by a 5-4 decision.
Mental age is a bad idea. But people
use the concept of mental age on a routine basis to describe the functioning of
people with low intelligence test scores. Years ago, intelligence was figured
on the basis of how well children solved problems on intelligence tests
compared to their age peers. The idea stuck and a number of 100 meant you
solved intelligence test problems as well as the average person in your age
group. Unfortunately, when you a person is 40 years old it really does not make
sense to compare his or her ability to that of children aged 3, 7, or 12. There’s
more to life than solving problems on an IQ test. If you read the opinion of
the court, you will see people still compare adults with intellectual abilities
to the abilities of children.
Test scores aren’t a suitable basis for
rigid rules. Whether in matters of life and death, getting a job, or
getting into a college or university, decisions ought to be based on more than
a test score. Test scores vary for many reasons. Psychologists know this. And
the opinion of the Supreme Court offers helpful information about errors in measurement.
It is clear that the justices were informed by the evidence psychology students
learn in courses on tests and measurement.
Over the years some people have wanted to throw out test
scores. But that doesn’t make sense either. Test scores provide data. The intelligent
use of test scores involves understanding the limitations of any test and
assigning weights to different sources of relevant evidence whether deciding on
admission to a college, employment position, or special consideration in
sentencing.
“Intellectual disability is a condition not
a number.” (Anthony
Kennedy, p. 21). Really? Kennedy’s text makes it clear that he understands
several factors should be weighed when concluding a person has an intellectual
disability. The problem with the quote—already appearing in news stories—is the
word, condition.
The court often refers to the DSM-5—the diagnostic
handbook used by American clinicians to diagnose mental disorders. A medical
framework for mental disorders like intellectual disability, schizophrenia, and
so forth as found in the DSM-5 assumes that when certain features are present,
a person has a condition. Diagnosable conditions can promote clarity of communication
by referring to the same set of symptoms or criteria. And if certain treatments
help reduce the troubling symptoms, then the labels for the conditions have
practical value. We want to know how to treat depression and panic disorder.
Intellectual ability is neither a condition
nor a number. There are many human abilities and people vary widely on
the amount they have of each ability. Thinking of low or high intelligence as a
unitary thing in a category does not make sense. People on the low end of
several intellectual abilities have significant difficulties surviving. And
people with high levels of several abilities are not just gifted. Some people with an IQ score near 70 can maintain full time
employment and others cannot. Some people with an IQ of 130 are unemployed.
Mental disorders are not just conditions. The symptoms found in people with
diagnoses of depression, schizophrenia, and other identified disorders vary from person to person. Diagnoses are a starting point not an end point. I am well
aware that our system of care demands a diagnosis so insurance companies will
pay for treatment or a person can claim a disability. But when it comes to
life, it’s important to realize that how well we sleep, pay attention, solve
problems, and get along with others is more important.
Too few clinicians forget about human strengths
and talents.
Soaring above normal is the stuff of life goals.
Thinking is a necessary but insufficient process
for reaching a moral decision.
