Poll: Could there ever be such a thing as "ethical" mind control?

[Subbies]

Seeing as ethics is something created by humans and subject to change, just as morals, of course it can be the case. However, as of right now in our western society, no it can not. Even if we imagine that we develop mind control and only present it as an alternative to the death penalty, it is still unethical (as with the death penalty). Justice isn't about ethics or morals and in either case you are removing agency and free will from a human being, no matter how horrible a person they might be.

Regardless I think that it is still a preferable outcome to death and I personally think ethics can go fuck itself.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yep. In fact, every prisoner and degenerate criminal deserves it - if they can't play by the rules of society, then they should be forced to.

I think that's going too far.

If you are forced to obey societal rules then that is pretty much unambiguous tyranny, whether by dictatorship or a democratic tyranny of the majority.

Well, yes, but then the same could be said of locking up criminals anyway.

Mind control for criminals seems further along the slippery slope, though.

 

[wizzy555]

Yep. In fact, every prisoner and degenerate criminal deserves it - if they can't play by the rules of society, then they should be forced to.

I think that's going too far.

If you are forced to obey societal rules then that is pretty much unambiguous tyranny, whether by dictatorship or a democratic tyranny of the majority.

Well, yes, but then the same could be said of locking up criminals anyway.

Mind control for criminals seems further along the slippery slope, though.

Depends how much you embrace Sartre's notion of radical freedom. The mind control thing is a huge affront to that.

 

[K12]

I think as a temporary measure to limit someone's behaviour it's fine but as an attempt to limit someone's thinking or guide someone's life it would be unethical even if you did it to a psychopath paedophile.

You could use fairly limited mind control without violating people's freedoms more than we accept already. Imagine the money we could save on prison security my just having a "do not leave the perimeter of this facility" instruction.

 

[Jack Action]

I think as a temporary measure to limit someone's behaviour it's fine but as an attempt to limit someone's thinking or guide someone's life it would be unethical even if you did it to a psychopath paedophile.

You could use fairly limited mind control without violating people's freedoms more than we accept already. Imagine the money we could save on prison security my just having a "do not leave the perimeter of this facility" instruction.

Would you really be comfortable with your government having the ability to implant undetectable orders that can't be disobeyed into someone's skull?

 

[chocolate pickles]

Yep. In fact, every prisoner and degenerate criminal deserves it - if they can't play by the rules of society, then they should be forced to.

I think that's going too far.

If you are forced to obey societal rules then that is pretty much unambiguous tyranny, whether by dictatorship or a democratic tyranny of the majority.

having to obey the law is not tyranny. It's order. I'm only advocating mind control for known criminals. Play by the rules, and no mind control is necessary. Refuse, then suffer the consequences.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Not as long as free will and self-determination stay, for at least our Western culture, at the top of what we value.

 

[JimB]

Of course it's possible. Someone's finger is on the trigger and he's about to commit murder, why would grabbing the gun with your hand be an ethical act of defense but grabbing his mind with your superpowers not be? Because a murderer has a greater right to have the sanctity of his mind respected than a victim has to not be murdered? Yeah, fuck off with that, Jeffrey Dahmer.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I think as a temporary measure to limit someone's behaviour it's fine but as an attempt to limit someone's thinking or guide someone's life it would be unethical even if you did it to a psychopath paedophile.

You could use fairly limited mind control without violating people's freedoms more than we accept already. Imagine the money we could save on prison security my just having a "do not leave the perimeter of this facility" instruction.

Would you really be comfortable with your government having the ability to implant undetectable orders that can't be disobeyed into someone's skull?

Being undetectable isn't a given, though. But, yeah, all sorts of potential for abuse.

 

[K12]

I think as a temporary measure to limit someone's behaviour it's fine but as an attempt to limit someone's thinking or guide someone's life it would be unethical even if you did it to a psychopath paedophile.

You could use fairly limited mind control without violating people's freedoms more than we accept already. Imagine the money we could save on prison security my just having a "do not leave the perimeter of this facility" instruction.

Would you really be comfortable with your government having the ability to implant undetectable orders that can't be disobeyed into someone's skull?

The thing is, if this power existed then it would either be used openly and officially with (hopefully) appropriate safeguards, accountability and transparency or it would get used under the table with little or no oversight.

Obviously as with any talent or ability "who controls it" is a really important and fundamental question (look what the Nazis did with some of their doctors) but my take is simply that if we were lucky and the right people had this power (i.e. someone dedicated to public service with a conscience and who was accountable for their actions) then it wouldn't be fundamentally wrong to make use of it.

 

[Jack Action]

Would you really be comfortable with your government having the ability to implant undetectable orders that can't be disobeyed into someone's skull?

Being undetectable isn't a given, though. But, yeah, all sorts of potential for abuse.

Thing is, if it's not detectable by the average joe, having it be detectable is useless as an anti-government-abuse security measure. And if it IS detectable by the average joe... Scarlet letter probably wouldn't even begin to describe it.

The thing is, if this power existed then it would either be used openly and officially with (hopefully) appropriate safeguards, accountability and transparency or it would get used under the table with little or no oversight.

Obviously as with any talent or ability "who controls it" is a really important and fundamental question (look what the Nazis did with some of their doctors) but my take is simply that if we were lucky and the right people had this power (i.e. someone dedicated to public service with a conscience and who was accountable for their actions) then it wouldn't be fundamentally wrong to make use of it.

There is no way in hell to ensure there are appropriate safeguards for the use of something like this. Any sort of institution placed in charge of it would need to have a ridiculous amount of power to deal with abuses of the technology/ability, even if it doesn't use mind control itself.

And the right people in charge, okay, but the right people according to whom? For example, I'd find someone who finds it acceptable to rewrite someone's free will to be unfit for any position of power, ever, even if they have the best intentions in the world.

 

[EyeReaper]

Well, sure. I could think of many ways you could ethically mind control people.

You know, like asking for consent first. Like, say someone has poor impulse control and wants to lose weight, It wouldn't be wrong to make him unable to eat anything deep fried until he's lost a few pounds, and I know I'd agree to that.

I think the problem is Absolute Power and the corruption that comes with it. Sure, you could do only good with your mind buggery... buuut Black Friday's coming up and you really don't want to wait in lines.

 

[RJ 17]

I voted for Laser Eyes because I'm a dick and will always click the "BS" option in a poll whenever a BS option is presented. :3

OT: It depends on the ol' Spock quote: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Is that a moral statement? If you sacrifice 100 people in order to save 100,000, have you made a moral decision? If yes, then there's nothing wrong with mind control in order to prevent some nutjob from detonating a suicide vest in the middle of a crowded cafe. If no, then you adamantly believe in free will to the point of allowing bad stuff so that everyone can maintain their free will.

Another quote (though I forget who this one is from...I know my high school Speech and Debate teacher said it once as an assignment we were supposed to argue for or against ) at play here is this:

Does inaction in the face of injustice make one morally culpable?

If you see someone about to do something terrible and it's fully within your power - via mind control - to stop them and yet you refuse to do so because you're morally against interfering with free will...are you not morally culpable in the terrible act that took place? After all, you could have prevented something incredibly immoral from happening and you did nothing.

In the end, had I not chosen the "Are you a dick?" response in the poll: I would have chosen yes. Personally I believe that using an immoral means such as mind control can lead to a moral outcome, assuming you've just stopped something terrible from happening.

 

[Jute88]

This will be one of those fundamental moral questions, like the geth dilemma from ME2:

Spoiler

why was mind rewrite paragon while blowing them up renegade?

The Geth and Krogan dilemma in ME2 were both situations where the Paragon-Renegade-morality wasn't made for, too many unanswered questions, moral gray area etc.

OT. As someone already said, this one's a hard nut to crack. Would the people still be aware of the mind control? Would you be able to overwrite your previous mind control orders? Could you give YOURSELF an order in front of a mirror?

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

This will be one of those fundamental moral questions, like the geth dilemma from ME2:

Spoiler

why was mind rewrite paragon while blowing them up renegade?

That's a subjective thing really because of:

Spoiler: More Mass Effect 2 Legion Loyalty Mission spoilers

The fact that the geth are basically computer programs, a collective intelligence, and only have physical bodies when they're tied into robotic platforms. All said the with the geth, the ones backing the reapers were a splinter faction, it's easy enough to say that they were malfunctioning. Also rewriting them instead of basically deleting them was the more moral choice, because geth programs are effectively immortal. Life is temporary of biological creatures, so death isn't much of a moral problem, because we all eventually die, a synthetic on the other hand can potentially live forever, so killing them off is far more morally wrong. That's why rewriting them is effectively the paragon choice.

 

[Asita]

...Let me respond with a scenario. A villain is trying to take over the world and is about to press a button that will blow up Germany. You're in the room with them, and you know that this villain is the kind who would do anything to live. You have a gun, and you have mind control powers. Is putting a mental block on them which prevents them from pressing the button really any worse than putting the gun to their head and telling them to step away from the button?

 

[Synigma]

Most of the responses seem to break down like this: YES - because I want to save the world by force, or NO - because I want to save the world from such a force.

Firstly I'd like to say that anyone that is staunchly one way or the other... you're kind of a bad person. The people who didn't hesitate to say yes are dictators at heart (frankly we all have a little dictator in us but most of us realize how bad it would be to indulge that) and the ones that immediately dismissed it's usefulness have deemed human life to be lesser importance.

That being said I fit into the group that immediately says no. Freedom IS more important than any individual human life and I can think of nothing that infringes on freedom more than trying to control someone's mind. If you want to argue that we can save lives by changing their minds? Then convince them they want to take a nap then let them wake up in jail where they can face justice, AS THEMSELVES.

Forcibly re-writing people's brains is, well, a no brainer. It's one of the few technologies that I am not 100% behind. Now if you want to discuss the possible uses for such a technique on the willing, ie pedophile who wants to change, then that is a grey area I'm willing to concede some ground on... but that's still VERY dangerous.

 

[wizzy555]

This will be one of those fundamental moral questions, like the geth dilemma from ME2:

Spoiler

why was mind rewrite paragon while blowing them up renegade?

That's a subjective thing really because of:

Spoiler: More Mass Effect 2 Legion Loyalty Mission spoilers

The fact that the geth are basically computer programs, a collective intelligence, and only have physical bodies when they're tied into robotic platforms. All said the with the geth, the ones backing the reapers were a splinter faction, it's easy enough to say that they were malfunctioning. Also rewriting them instead of basically deleting them was the more moral choice, because geth programs are effectively immortal. Life is temporary of biological creatures, so death isn't much of a moral problem, because we all eventually die, a synthetic on the other hand can potentially live forever, so killing them off is far more morally wrong. That's why rewriting them is effectively the paragon choice.

Spoiler

No it's made very clear in the story, they aren't malfunctioning, they have some rounding differences in their logic. Bioware made it as analogous to an ideological schism as they could.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I would says it depends on how you value "freedom" since a full mind control would take that person freedom away per say?

Also the topic kinda remind me of Light used of the Death Note if his action were good or evil.

 

[cleric of the order]

I don't know if it really can be in a philosophical sense. Complete control of a mind is insane, it is immoral inherantly because of it's invasive nature but persuasion, not so much.
If you can influence people to preform acts that resonate with their unconscious, than perhaps it's more ethical because the person in question is acting on their own impulses