Maybe the existence of this perspective is common knowledge -- maybe it's even widely held -- but it's new to me. Prompted by Alessandra's musings on the barbarity of our society's approach to "hate" speech I've realized that there is a large swath of society that acts (even if it won't admit it) as if there's nothing wrong with mental illness, obsession, dependence, manipulation, violence, harassment, and so forth. Many -- particularly among the people who act in these ways -- pay lip-service to "mental health" (according to their conception of it), but with little justification.
For example, who can say that a violently abusive relationship is "bad"? If the woman tolerates it, what gives society a right to object -- to impose external morality onto her relationship? Why would anyone think there's something wrong with stalking? Or co-dependent relationships? Pedophilia? (Dare I ask,) homosexuality? Even rape? Sure, many people find these things distasteful, but so what? How can any of them be objectively wrong? Even more weakly, how can any of them be "unhealthy"?
From a humanist perspective, anything that promotes the continuance of the species is "natural" and therefore healthy, and therefore good. Rape? Big deal. Women are biologically capable of bearing children, and it's only natural that they do so. Whichever man is strongest should pass along his genes at will. That's how every other species works, and we're just animals, right? All other sexual perversions can be rationalized with the same arguments. Whatever your genes incline you to do, do. If your genes are good, you'll win. Otherwise, you'll lose. Either way, the "problem" -- if there is one -- is self-correcting, and "health" will emerge spontaneously.
(HT: Clayton Cramer.)