The principle of demanding one set of rules for one person or group of people, and another set of rules for another person or group.

The best and clearest example is the argument given by women, and before half the planet screams at me, some women, not all, that their hormones, primarily the flush of hormones at the beginning of each month, justifies massive behavioural changes, mood swings, and bouts of irrational thought.  

Now here is the problem with this, men have hormones too.  Testosterone especially, causes men to feel aggresive and invokes the desire to mate.

Many of the women who put forward the above excuse would be disgusted if, for an evening, their partner suspended all rational thought, started to fight with all his competitors and mated with all her friends.  Yet this is no more the man's fault than the woman's mood swings are her's. 

A suggest from this author would be that everyone considers hormones to be an influence on the behaviour of both men and women and that it be considered WEAKNESS for a woman to be moody, and WEAKNESS also for a man to be unfaithful and violent.  For if we let our emotions and chemical imbalances suspend our minds and act in a way that hurts those we allow ourselves to love then we are no better than animals.

JamesReddish

''It is possible, to a certain degree, to be conscious of hormonal (or other brain chemical) influences and rationally alter behaviour.  However, it must be noted that behaviour, attitudes and conscious awareness are ''entirely'' a product of the brain and nervous system.  That is why it is impossible, for example, to be "not drunk" through willpower alone after having downed ten pints.  The same applies to hormonal and other chemical effects, so hormones and other chemicals ''will'' influence attitudes and conscious awareness, and ''will'' influence behaviour despite conscious awareness of these.'' 

However, the attitude one has when drunk is under one's control - I have altered my demeanor while drunk just by effort of will.  I was still drunk, but I was not a 'sloppy drunk'

''I'm sure a few more beer would have corrected that.''
----

This raises the issue of blame. 

How can people under the influence of chemicals be blamed, punished or in fact, in anyway held responsible for their actions.

I would propose that the answer lies in generally accepted limits, and whilst it is entirely morally wrong to hold anyone responsible for anything, it IS neccessary for the proper functioning of society.  The most sensible course of action then, to proceed in taking action based on the best possible outcome, punish where punishment can be deemed to improve conscious rational control of behaviour, and only then, restrain only when the subject is "out of control".

* ''The immediate need is protecting the public. A drug addict who has murdered under the influence is clearly a danger to society. Punishment is a secondary concern. On a related note, I've heard an interesting discussion on PBS about "custom" punishment. We often think that what's effective punishment for ourselves is effective punishment for others; but often that's not the case. Increasing the incarceration time is giving diminishing returns while increasing tax-payers burden of supporting ever-growing prisons (and a national embarrassment). Time to rethink the system.''

Back to the topic of Hormones, in the argument between partners, generalisation is nigh on impossible.  To let yourself go entirely to your feelings is reprehensible, to control them entirely is impossible, and so calls of judgement may be made.  Perhaps you are not suited to someone who calls the limits very differently to the way you do.

"it is entirely morally wrong to hold anyone responsible for anything" -- Um, excuse me?  A system in which no one can be held responsible for anything is not a system of morality.  The point of morality is that people are responsible for their decisions and actions, and possibly for their thoughts, motives, and intentions.

StartingPoints