How do we defined crazy?

[Angrboda]

The reason crazy is not well defined is that it is not a technical term, and thus has no specific technical usage.

You seem to be conflating a couple of things.

In my opinion, derived from experience, we define syndromes and other diagnostic categories as an aid to matching individuals with treatments, therapies, or interventions that are likely to benefit them (or sometimes others) according to whatever their self-interest determines is appropriate (the two common complaints usually addressed are subjective distress, or dysfunctional behavior).

What you seem to want to be addressing does not fall in that category, and more properly falls into the category of bad ideas and bad behavior (ethics). In my opinion, neither of these should be medicalized as being pathological mental behaviors, for numerous reasons, not the least of which are the ethical concern that doing so does not appear to serve their self-interest but that of someone else who does not possess a legitimate interest; second, it's doubtful that any of the treatments or treatment modalities used for the treatment of mental or physical disorders would be cost effective and productive, even if ethical. The treatment for bad ideas is education and discourse. The treatment for bad behavior requires a pollitical solution based on our best understanding of what ethical principles require.

Anyway, that's my first stab at it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Here's my first stab. Crazy, as a folk psychology, is when people act in a way that is both contrary to their own interests and harmful to others. If you put it into four-square it would look something like this:

self harm + other harm = crazy
self harm + other benefit = possibly genuine altruism or possible self-sacrifice
self benefit + other harm = evil
self benefit + other benefit = good

[Angrboda]

Here's my first stab. Crazy, as a folk psychology, is when people act in a way that is both contrary to their own interests and harmful to others. If you put it into four-square it would look something like this:

self harm + other harm = crazy
self harm + other benefit = possibly genuine altruism or possible self-sacrifice
self benefit + other harm = evil
self benefit + other benefit = good

Only problems I see with this are, first, it's perspectivist. Who defines what harm is? Second, people are usually a complex blend of these, and different things at different times, so people have both self harm + self-benefit simultaneously, as well as other-harm and other-benefit simultaneously. And perspectivism applies to benefit as well. Are you less good because you're not trying to stop procrastinating so much? Moreover, the most important context in which these questions arise involve weighing one person's benefit against another's harm. This doesn't seem to scale very well.


And then you have people like me, who are truly crazy. I think self-harm is self-benefit and other-harm is other-benefit. Who are you to tell me that I am wrong?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Only problems I see with this are, first, it's perspectivist.

Yes, that would be a problem for someone who does not acknowledge the validity of first-person subjective experiences.