Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Dissociative Identity Disorder

tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 4:22:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let's say you meet a girl (we'll call her Anna). The two of you fall in love. You discover later on that she has another personality, who is called Sophia, living inside her. When Sophia appears, a completely distinct personality, is she still your girlfriend? Is sleeping with Sophia cheating on Anna?

What happens if you marry Anna and something triggers her to permanently become "Sophia"? Is she still your wife?

Wiki of DID --> http://en.wikipedia.org...
yang.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 4:24:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It should be noted that tulle and I disagree strongly on this question. I'm not Harold right now but I'm sure he'd disagree with her, too.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 4:40:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 4:22:23 PM, tulle wrote:
Let's say you meet a girl (we'll call her Anna). The two of you fall in love. You discover later on that she has another personality, who is called Sophia, living inside her. When Sophia appears, a completely distinct personality, is she still your girlfriend? Is sleeping with Sophia cheating on Anna?

What happens if you marry Anna and something triggers her to permanently become "Sophia"? Is she still your wife?

Wiki of DID --> http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'd say yes. The fact that an alter is jealous of another alters interaction says more about the ecology of those alters than anything else.

DID occurs when a child undergoes trauma before he/she has appropriate cognitive tools to deal with it. Namely, all a helpless child has at his/her disposal when trapped (say, with incestuous parents) is dissociation.

One way to think about it is this: in a healthy mind our emotional experience of an event, the content of the event, our feelings of identity at the time, and our behavioral reaction to an event are all "linked" to each other.

A dissociative defense mechanism basically involves "breaking up" this link so that an individual is spared immediate psychological consequences. Think of the "triggers" some women feel after rape. Their physiological reaction can be decoupled from the memory (i.e. they feel sick when smelling something but not knowing why).

Consistently activating the dissociative mechanism means systematically "breaking up" a child's experiences into smaller more controllable components. "Alters" are largely the result of trying to compartmentalize parts of a person that is unacceptable to him/her at the present.

This sometimes get interpreted wrongly as a "fantasy" because alters define themselves with limited information (some alters have 'all access' to the subconscious, but they are rare).

Take this real-life case: a teen with DID comes into the doctors office. Her alter is CONVINCED she is Cleopatra. The one from ancient Egypt. Not reincarnated, the actual person. Ask the alter to draw a picture of itself, and you get a stereotype of Egyptians.

When questioned thoroughly over years, the doctor found that, as a child who was regularly put into horrific and solitary situations, she would imagine that Cleopatra was with her as a imaginary friend.

Repeated dissociation leads to an alter specifically meant to cope with that horrific environment. In order to make sense of the dissociations between event meaning, content, experience, etc, a mental narrative involving an "Cleopatra alter" is created.

This isn't to you can undo the damage entirely decades after the fact. A lot of people will never get past co-existing with their alters. Some people undo a layer of alters only to find a new layer. People have been documented with dozens of alters, some with hundreds. Unfortunately, some of the more famous cases of DiD were fraudulent representations by psychologists of their patients (e.g. Sybil).
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 4:48:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 4:40:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/4/2013 4:22:23 PM, tulle wrote:
Let's say you meet a girl (we'll call her Anna). The two of you fall in love. You discover later on that she has another personality, who is called Sophia, living inside her. When Sophia appears, a completely distinct personality, is she still your girlfriend? Is sleeping with Sophia cheating on Anna?

What happens if you marry Anna and something triggers her to permanently become "Sophia"? Is she still your wife?

Wiki of DID --> http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'd say yes. The fact that an alter is jealous of another alters interaction says more about the ecology of those alters than anything else.


Sorry, I asked a bunch of questions and I'm confused as to which one(s) you're answering yes to. I think you're saying yes it's cheating, but is she still your wife?
yang.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 5:32:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 4:48:27 PM, tulle wrote:
At 6/4/2013 4:40:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/4/2013 4:22:23 PM, tulle wrote:
Let's say you meet a girl (we'll call her Anna). The two of you fall in love. You discover later on that she has another personality, who is called Sophia, living inside her. When Sophia appears, a completely distinct personality, is she still your girlfriend? Is sleeping with Sophia cheating on Anna?

What happens if you marry Anna and something triggers her to permanently become "Sophia"? Is she still your wife?

Wiki of DID --> http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'd say yes. The fact that an alter is jealous of another alters interaction says more about the ecology of those alters than anything else.


Sorry, I asked a bunch of questions and I'm confused as to which one(s) you're answering yes to. I think you're saying yes it's cheating, but is she still your wife?

You are making the mistake of seeing someone with DiD as literally being separate individuals. That's not how it works. Someone can have the delusion that their husband is having having sex with a different person, but that doesn't mean we should call it cheating. Sophia and Anna are not distinct human beings even though their behavioral repertoires may be different.

Think of my example. Is it cheating if a man sleeps with the Cleopatra alter instead of the girl's primary alter?

In my opinion, a much more interesting question is:

If Anna doesn't want to have sex with Bob, but Bob knows the Sophia alter will sleep with anyone, is Bob raping Anna by having sex with Sophia? Does it matter that Bob knows this about Sophia beforehand?

I'm honestly not sure how to answer those.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 5:36:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It may help to think like this:

If someone secretly recorded your actions and speech while you were with your best friend versus while you in a meeting with your boss' boss, there will be huge differences. Probably enough so that, if it were anonymized, some may mistake the two for being different people.

DiD would be like if every time you were in "best friend" mode you couldn't remember anything you did in "employee mode" and vice versa.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 5:46:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 5:32:18 PM, Wnope wrote:

You are making the mistake of seeing someone with DiD as literally being separate individuals. That's not how it works. Someone can have the delusion that their husband is having having sex with a different person, but that doesn't mean we should call it cheating. Sophia and Anna are not distinct human beings even though their behavioral repertoires may be different.

Think of my example. Is it cheating if a man sleeps with the Cleopatra alter instead of the girl's primary alter?

In my opinion, a much more interesting question is:

If Anna doesn't want to have sex with Bob, but Bob knows the Sophia alter will sleep with anyone, is Bob raping Anna by having sex with Sophia? Does it matter that Bob knows this about Sophia beforehand?

I'm honestly not sure how to answer those.

In that case, I believe we agree. I don't think it's cheating and I agree that the person would still be your wife. I posed the question because Maikuru disagrees :p Maybe he'll shed some light on his position.
yang.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 7:08:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I guess the best way to answer this question is to ask "if I had DID and my wife slept with my alter-ego, would I consider it cheating?

...

I guess that also begs the question of "who am I" -- my body or my thoughts? I guess it breaks down like this

1. If she has sex with him, whatev's it's still the same body. If she had sex with me in my sleep I wouldn't consider it cheating.

2. If she falls in love with him, she's having an emotional affair and that's cheating.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 7:38:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 4:22:23 PM, tulle wrote:
Let's say you meet a girl (we'll call her Anna).

Oh, I like that name.

The two of you fall in love.

Anna is the one for me.

You discover later on that she has another personality, who is called Sophia, living inside her.

Uh oh.

When Sophia appears, a completely distinct personality, is she still your girlfriend?

Yes, but she's not really Sophia.

Is sleeping with Sophia cheating on Anna?

It's not cheating because they're actually the same person. It's just weird is all.

What happens if you marry Anna and something triggers her to permanently become "Sophia"? Is she still your wife?

She's still my wife, but it would be a weird relationship.

This is how I look at it. There's a difference between Anna and Sophia being two distinct persons and Anna/Sophia having multiple personality disorder. If Anna and Sophia actually were two distinct persons, then it would not be a disorder (although it would be extremely curious how they could share the same brain). It's a disorder because although they are the same person, the personality is somehow split.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
yin.yang
Posts: 428
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 8:47:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 7:38:37 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/4/2013 4:22:23 PM, tulle wrote:
Let's say you meet a girl (we'll call her Anna).

Oh, I like that name.

The two of you fall in love.

Anna is the one for me.

You discover later on that she has another personality, who is called Sophia, living inside her.

Uh oh.


LOL!
Maikuru and tulle.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 8:55:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anyway, yes it's cheating (you hear that tulle? I don't give a damn what Harold promised you).

I'm looking at it less in terms of the condition, which is both controversial and extraordinarily complex, and more of a philosophical discussion on the meaning of identity.

Our personalities, not our bodies, are the fundamental elements of our romantic attachments. As such, a complete change in personality (as I am taking a change from Anna to Sophia to mean - again, I am addressing this issue conceptually, not medically) constitutes a change in identity. Sleeping with Sophia is not the same as sleeping with Anna because Anna =/= Sophia.

Assume for a second that I am in a relationship with a girl, let's call her Tolle. Now let's say that Tolle is cloned exactly . Now Tolle's mind is placed in the clone and a complete stranger's mind is placed in her original body. Who should I continue my relationship with? The stranger in Tolle's original body or the original Tolle in a duplicate's body? Obviously the clone, because it isn't the body that matters, but rather its owner.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 9:11:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Now, see, I think our identity rests in something more than just our mental states. After all, let's suppose that God creates a new body with a new brain and implants all of Tulle's psychological states in that brain, including all of our memories, beliefs, quirks, singing talent, personality, preferences, etc. Now, you'd have two people--the original Tulle, and the copy. Would these actually be the same person just because they have the same mental states? If so, would that mean it's not cheating on Tulle if you have sex with Tolle, and vice versa?

Imagine if God created a perfect duplicate of you. How would you feel if Tulle slept with him?

It seems to me that they're clearly the distinct persons, even though they have the same mental life. One is a copy of the other. Only one of them is the original Tulle.

I think people have mental states, but the are not identical with their mental states. After all, our mental states are in a constant state of change. Most of us don't even remember being 1 year old. We have a completely different mental life than when we were one year old. If that means we are different persons, then none of us every WERE one year old. IN fact, none of us were even born! None of us have a birthday! But that seems absurd.

The person/self/*I*/ego/etc. is what has various mental states throughout life, but since we remain the same person throughout these changes, we are not identical with our mental states. So I believe that if somebody has a mental disorder in which they take on different personalities, the personalities are not literally different people. That's why it's a disorder. If they were literally different people, it wouldn't be a disorder.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 9:19:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 9:11:34 PM, philochristos wrote:
Now, see, I think our identity rests in something more than just our mental states. After all, let's suppose that God creates a new body with a new brain and implants all of Tulle's psychological states in that brain, including all of our memories, beliefs, quirks, singing talent, personality, preferences, etc. Now, you'd have two people--the original Tulle, and the copy. Would these actually be the same person just because they have the same mental states? If so, would that mean it's not cheating on Tulle if you have sex with Tolle, and vice versa?

I agree that mental states are necessary but not sufficient grounds for identity in that case.

Imagine if God created a perfect duplicate of you. How would you feel if Tulle slept with him?


He'd die long before that happened. There can be only one.

It seems to me that they're clearly the distinct persons, even though they have the same mental life. One is a copy of the other. Only one of them is the original Tulle.


I agree. If two people are duplicated in every way, that doesn't mean that the copy is the one I experienced my relationship with.

I think people have mental states, but the are not identical with their mental states. After all, our mental states are in a constant state of change. Most of us don't even remember being 1 year old. We have a completely different mental life than when we were one year old. If that means we are different persons, then none of us every WERE one year old. IN fact, none of us were even born! None of us have a birthday! But that seems absurd.

The person/self/*I*/ego/etc. is what has various mental states throughout life, but since we remain the same person throughout these changes, we are not identical with our mental states. So I believe that if somebody has a mental disorder in which they take on different personalities, the personalities are not literally different people. That's why it's a disorder. If they were literally different people, it wouldn't be a disorder.

I think that's why tulle and I diverged on our views, as well. She viewed the separate personalities not as new individuals, but rather as extensions of the original. I viewed the issue more conceptually and approached the question as sleeping with a different individual in the same body. In that respect, the body is irrelevant in terms of the relationship; you are engaging your activity with a different person, just wearing your old partner's skin, as it were.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 9:33:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yeah, I guess the focus in the OP should be less on DID and more on the concept of having two distinct personalities in the same person.
yang.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 9:37:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 8:55:19 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Anyway, yes it's cheating (you hear that tulle? I don't give a damn what Harold promised you).

I'm looking at it less in terms of the condition, which is both controversial and extraordinarily complex, and more of a philosophical discussion on the meaning of identity.

Our personalities, not our bodies, are the fundamental elements of our romantic attachments. As such, a complete change in personality (as I am taking a change from Anna to Sophia to mean - again, I am addressing this issue conceptually, not medically) constitutes a change in identity. Sleeping with Sophia is not the same as sleeping with Anna because Anna =/= Sophia.

Assume for a second that I am in a relationship with a girl, let's call her Tolle. Now let's say that Tolle is cloned exactly . Now Tolle's mind is placed in the clone and a complete stranger's mind is placed in her original body. Who should I continue my relationship with? The stranger in Tolle's original body or the original Tolle in a duplicate's body? Obviously the clone, because it isn't the body that matters, but rather its owner.

Do you actually know anyone with DiD? Because you keep giving this stereotypical view of an alter as an entirely distinct human being.

Alters have different behavioral repertoires but they aren't their own person anymore than someone with borderline personality order is different people when they have jumped moods (borderline is commonly misdiagnosed as DiD and vice versa). People don't "switch" forever as if it were part of growing up. The alters are based in coping mechanisms.

If "sophia" exists then she exists for a reason as either a remnant or shrapnel of that trauma and the resulting attempts to cope with it repeatedly.

It's nothing like having a clone. It's like having a single developing mind that is fractured by trauma, and those fractured pieces forming self-sustaining parts which adapt to face a world presumed to be full of that trauma.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 9:48:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Wnope, please see bolded:

At 6/4/2013 8:55:19 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Anyway, yes it's cheating (you hear that tulle? I don't give a damn what Harold promised you).

I'm looking at it less in terms of the condition, which is both controversial and extraordinarily complex, and more of a philosophical discussion on the meaning of identity.

Our personalities, not our bodies, are the fundamental elements of our romantic attachments. As such, a complete change in personality (as I am taking a change from Anna to Sophia to mean - again, I am addressing this issue conceptually, not medically) constitutes a change in identity. Sleeping with Sophia is not the same as sleeping with Anna because Anna =/= Sophia.

Assume for a second that I am in a relationship with a girl, let's call her Tolle. Now let's say that Tolle is cloned exactly . Now Tolle's mind is placed in the clone and a complete stranger's mind is placed in her original body. Who should I continue my relationship with? The stranger in Tolle's original body or the original Tolle in a duplicate's body? Obviously the clone, because it isn't the body that matters, but rather its owner.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 11:24:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This thread would get more hits if it had its proper title: Sex with Anne and Sophia.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 12:12:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 9:48:52 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Wnope, please see bolded:

At 6/4/2013 8:55:19 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Anyway, yes it's cheating (you hear that tulle? I don't give a damn what Harold promised you).

I'm looking at it less in terms of the condition, which is both controversial and extraordinarily complex, and more of a philosophical discussion on the meaning of identity.

Our personalities, not our bodies, are the fundamental elements of our romantic attachments. As such, a complete change in personality (as I am taking a change from Anna to Sophia to mean - again, I am addressing this issue conceptually, not medically) constitutes a change in identity. Sleeping with Sophia is not the same as sleeping with Anna because Anna =/= Sophia.

Assume for a second that I am in a relationship with a girl, let's call her Tolle. Now let's say that Tolle is cloned exactly . Now Tolle's mind is placed in the clone and a complete stranger's mind is placed in her original body. Who should I continue my relationship with? The stranger in Tolle's original body or the original Tolle in a duplicate's body? Obviously the clone, because it isn't the body that matters, but rather its owner.

The thing is, there is a huge philosophical gap between talking about clones and someone with a mental disorder. Ignoring it means you ignore the distinctions between identity, personality, and personhood.

The personality change of someone with DiD can easily be matched with some people with borderline personality disorder. The main difference is a borderline personality remembers everything and won't self-identify usually as being PART OF a group of personalities.

But you wouldn't say that a man who sleeps with his wife when the wife is in very different moves is being an adulterer. So you can't viably argue that "personality change" constitutes cheating.

There are forms of amnesia in which a person lives not knowing what he did for certain periods of time (just as DiD suffers don't recall what their alters do). This doesn't mean their identity is reconstituted each time.

So it's not mutually exclusive memory that allows you to say Ann and Sophia are distinct and thus sex with one is cheating.

Your argument boils down to self-identification. Ann believes/claims that she is not Sophia and Ann believes/claim she is not Sophia. The only "adultery" is that if you act upon Sophia, Ann will believe you have not acted upon her.

Say Ann decides to have sex with her husband, but halfway through she has a delusion that the husband is someone else. A different person. She keeps having sex with the husband thinking it is a different man.

Ann would believe she cheated on her husband, but would it be right to say she actually cheated on him?

Similarly, if the husband acts upon Ann but she has the delusion you are only acting upon Sophia, would it be right to say the husband it cheating on Ann?
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 12:20:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 12:12:45 AM, Wnope wrote:

The thing is, there is a huge philosophical gap between talking about clones and someone with a mental disorder.

Right. I pointed out twice what I was referring to.

Say Ann decides to have sex with her husband, but halfway through she has a delusion that the husband is someone else. A different person. She keeps having sex with the husband thinking it is a different man.

Ann would believe she cheated on her husband, but would it be right to say she actually cheated on him?

Similarly, if the husband acts upon Ann but she has the delusion you are only acting upon Sophia, would it be right to say the husband it cheating on Ann?

What do you mean by delusion?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 12:27:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 12:20:43 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 6/5/2013 12:12:45 AM, Wnope wrote:

The thing is, there is a huge philosophical gap between talking about clones and someone with a mental disorder.

Right. I pointed out twice what I was referring to.

Say Ann decides to have sex with her husband, but halfway through she has a delusion that the husband is someone else. A different person. She keeps having sex with the husband thinking it is a different man.

Ann would believe she cheated on her husband, but would it be right to say she actually cheated on him?

Similarly, if the husband acts upon Ann but she has the delusion you are only acting upon Sophia, would it be right to say the husband it cheating on Ann?

What do you mean by delusion?

The same type that would occur if Ann were schizophrenic and believed she was having sex with a man other than her husband even though it was her husband.

She would believe it is cheating, but that doesn't mean we should consider it cheating because it stems from thinking errors.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 5:54:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 12:27:57 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/5/2013 12:20:43 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 6/5/2013 12:12:45 AM, Wnope wrote:

The thing is, there is a huge philosophical gap between talking about clones and someone with a mental disorder.

Right. I pointed out twice what I was referring to.

Say Ann decides to have sex with her husband, but halfway through she has a delusion that the husband is someone else. A different person. She keeps having sex with the husband thinking it is a different man.

Ann would believe she cheated on her husband, but would it be right to say she actually cheated on him?

Similarly, if the husband acts upon Ann but she has the delusion you are only acting upon Sophia, would it be right to say the husband it cheating on Ann?

What do you mean by delusion?

The same type that would occur if Ann were schizophrenic and believed she was having sex with a man other than her husband even though it was her husband.

She would believe it is cheating, but that doesn't mean we should consider it cheating because it stems from thinking errors.

Doesn't intent largely determine ethical questions?

I went to high school with twin brothers, real wise guys that played identity games all the time, they both claimed to have slept with each other's girlfriends.

The brothers were certainly cheating, but can you really say the girlfriends cheated if they didn't know it? If Anna thinks she's cheating and is not aware that she isn't really cheating, wouldn't it be her intent to cheat that is the ethical breach?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 8:09:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 5:54:29 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

Doesn't intent largely determine ethical questions?

No, it completely determines ethical questions.

I went to high school with twin brothers, real wise guys that played identity games all the time, they both claimed to have slept with each other's girlfriends.

The brothers were certainly cheating, but can you really say the girlfriends cheated if they didn't know it? If Anna thinks she's cheating and is not aware that she isn't really cheating, wouldn't it be her intent to cheat that is the ethical breach?

Yes. And this also answers Wnope's "interesting" question about sleeping with an alter-ego to circumvent the main identity's wishes: the intentions are certainly poor, so morality is violated.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 2:41:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 8:09:21 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/5/2013 5:54:29 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

Doesn't intent largely determine ethical questions?

No, it completely determines ethical questions.

I went to high school with twin brothers, real wise guys that played identity games all the time, they both claimed to have slept with each other's girlfriends.

The brothers were certainly cheating, but can you really say the girlfriends cheated if they didn't know it? If Anna thinks she's cheating and is not aware that she isn't really cheating, wouldn't it be her intent to cheat that is the ethical breach?

Yes. And this also answers Wnope's "interesting" question about sleeping with an alter-ego to circumvent the main identity's wishes: the intentions are certainly poor, so morality is violated.

That doesn't answer the question. Has the man RAPED the DiD victim? The question is about the ability for an individual to maintain consent. This isn't about a simple valence of "morality violated/morality not violated."

You don't believe it is possible for an individual to do something "bad" as long as he/she has good intentions?

On the other end, say a serial killer wants to get into a concert to kill someone. In order to get in you have to pay a hundred dollars to a particular charity or hop the fence risking security. Would we say that the serial killer's act of handing over money instead of hopping the fence is "bad" because the intent is to aid in murder? Would hopping the fence be equally bad as giving charity money and then killing someone?

Just things to think about.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 7:40:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If the man and the alter have sex, is that like the man having sex with someone who's unconscious?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 9:29:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 7:40:34 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
If the man and the alter have sex, is that like the man having sex with someone who's unconscious?

Now THERE'S a good question.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2013 4:12:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have several friends who consider themselves multiple*, so I can say what I've noticed in my discussions with them.

Now, since the different members of their system can communicate with each other, and aren't complete d!cks, it isn't too hard to resolve such problems. You could, for instance, have a relationship with the entire system. Or you could have a relationship with one or more members of the system and rely on basic communication (and differences in body language) to not have sex with other members of the system.

* Multiple means that multiple individuals share the same body, usually at the same time--ie they are conscious at the same time. I'm aware this strains the credulity of some but in the absence of any better explanation on someone can think they are two distinct consciousnesses at the same time without being flat-out insane, I'll keep assuming that they are correct, thank you very much. I must also remind everybody that we do not know how identity and consciousness originate, so we do not know whether or not the brain would be capable of hosting separate consciousnesses at the same time.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2013 5:55:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/6/2013 4:12:38 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
I have several friends who consider themselves multiple*, so I can say what I've noticed in my discussions with them.

Now, since the different members of their system can communicate with each other, and aren't complete d!cks, it isn't too hard to resolve such problems. You could, for instance, have a relationship with the entire system. Or you could have a relationship with one or more members of the system and rely on basic communication (and differences in body language) to not have sex with other members of the system.


* Multiple means that multiple individuals share the same body, usually at the same time--ie they are conscious at the same time. I'm aware this strains the credulity of some but in the absence of any better explanation on someone can think they are two distinct consciousnesses at the same time without being flat-out insane, I'll keep assuming that they are correct, thank you very much. I must also remind everybody that we do not know how identity and consciousness originate, so we do not know whether or not the brain would be capable of hosting separate consciousnesses at the same time.

No, that's entirely correct. I just didn't want to complicate things more than they were. Heck, I was being criticized for too much focus on the psychological complexity of DiD.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2013 6:01:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/6/2013 4:12:38 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
I have several friends who consider themselves multiple*, so I can say what I've noticed in my discussions with them.

Now, since the different members of their system can communicate with each other, and aren't complete d!cks, it isn't too hard to resolve such problems. You could, for instance, have a relationship with the entire system. Or you could have a relationship with one or more members of the system and rely on basic communication (and differences in body language) to not have sex with other members of the system.


* Multiple means that multiple individuals share the same body, usually at the same time--ie they are conscious at the same time. I'm aware this strains the credulity of some but in the absence of any better explanation on someone can think they are two distinct consciousnesses at the same time without being flat-out insane, I'll keep assuming that they are correct, thank you very much. I must also remind everybody that we do not know how identity and consciousness originate, so we do not know whether or not the brain would be capable of hosting separate consciousnesses at the same time.

Btw, you sure you have SEVERAL friends who are multiples?

Because, unless you know the other multiples through one multiple, there aren't many ordinary reasons to have encountered and befriended so many.