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

[Something Amyss]

"Ethics" is a broad and complex subject and any discussion should recognise that. However, given that part of the idea behind ethics is minimising harm (this is fairly universal, unlike other elements of ethics which are body or field specific), I can see an argument for ethical mind control. We, as a society, will deprive people of autonomy, freedom, or even life if there is sufficient potential for harm. We also tend to be trigger happy on that, but that's more of an R&P discussion, methinks. The point is that we already make people prisoners or violate them in other senses to prevent/minimise harm.

I can support Obi-Waning someone in self-defense or defense of others in many of the same situations I would condone violence or imprisonment.

However, as I said, ethics is a broad and complicated topic, and I can understand other points of view on the matter.

For example killing Hitler before he came to power could cause issues like the world getting a worse dictator, or the lack of exposure making things like concentration/death camps acceptable.

Except the former is incredibly reductive and inaccurate, and death camps actually were already acceptable. Not to mention prior applications of Eugenics on ethnic minorities. The US did that. We're the good guys. Yay us.

In practice, this is closer to the question of "if there was a train heading towards ten people and you could save them by flipping a switch, but you kill one innocent person, would you?"

Though I can see it being ethically used as a form of therapy, provided there's consent. Like say someone who had violent impulses or some kind of addiction willingly allowing their minds to be tweaked to remove them, though that leads to another slippery slope.

That is a damn good point. It wouldn't even need to be violent impulses and the like. I suffer PTSD, and I'm wondering what the applications could be in that field.

...on the other hand, yeah, it opens up a horde of abuse possibilities. Especially since we already have shrinks that try and cure TEH GAY.

Doesn't ethical mind control already exist?

What about hypnotism to help people give up smoking?

It's not mind control, and it's especially not the situation described in the OP.

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.

If we're talking the real world, though, people are going to invariably abuse it. And we have police and military abuse routinely. And that's assuming this was mind control specifically in their hands. What if it's a private citizen? The question asked asked us to presume we had the power. What if it was you, ore me, or anyone else in this thread? Could there even be oversight necessarily?

 

[Coruptin]

Yes, but not by a human. No human should have the right to override the will of another human. It doesn't matter how "good" the intentions are.

 

[Jadak]

Yes, that exact Jessica Jones example answers the question you're raising from it, that's an ethical use, especially if it's of a short term nature and is used as an alternative to say, shooting people.

Only issue would be in regulating it's use. Good luck distributing such a tech for 'ethical' situations and not seeing it use elsewhere.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

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.

The problem with this view is that often the law is tyrannical. 80 years ago racial segregation was written into the laws. Rosa Parks was a known criminal that didn't play by the rules.

 

[I can't enter my old name]

I fail to see how people equate mind control to killing. If you have someone kill themselves or others, then yes that is equivalent to killing. However if you walk up to some person and say, "Put that can in the trash", they do so and then go about with their merry life.

I don't think we should say "Mind control is evil because we are violating someone's free will." There are tons of ways to control people's free will, and mind control is probably of the highest degree. The evil part of the act is really how much are we changing someone's behavior, and does it conflict with their belief or intention. If you used your mind control powers trivially, like telling your spouse, "Go to work today" and they would have done so anyways, there's not much unethical about either the action or the outcome.

Mind control could also be a lesser evil. Changing the beliefs of a dictator is probably better than outright killing him. The dead dictator would have not have free will anymore, let alone a will. The changed mind dictator would be happy with his or her current state, and his or her subjects would be happier.

Really, the uneasiness about mind control is its implications. It is a godlike power, so people ought to be wary of it. One can also argue that creating beings to serve a purpose can either be ethical or unethical.

 

[Asita]

That is a damn good point. It wouldn't even need to be violent impulses and the like. I suffer PTSD, and I'm wondering what the applications could be in that field.

...on the other hand, yeah, it opens up a horde of abuse possibilities. Especially since we already have shrinks that try and cure TEH GAY.

On the flip side, it could be used to prevent recidivism for child abusers[footnote]And before anyone jumps on me for this, no I am not likening homosexuality to pedophilia. I bring it up here because the same principle tragically applied in trying to "cure" homosexuality would (presuming the topic of the thread) have a far more beneficial results when applied to sex criminals[/footnote] and other sex offenders. Going broader, it could completely retool our justice system. Mind control could, in theory, give us prisons defined by implanted commands rather than concrete walls.

 

[Lucane]

Code Geass and Inception had the right idea about mind control if you want to "ethically" change the world for the better "forcefully". You're gonna have to hurt some people in order to make a lot of other people think of the right thing to do on there own. The problem of course is if you have said power it's just one slip away from becoming a tyrannical ruler. A new anime called Charlotte walks down a similar road near the end of the 13 episode series but with out mind control (or at least not without mentioning anyone having that particular ability.)

 

[stormtrooper9091]

No, all mind control is bad

Next

 

[CeeBod]

I fail to see how people equate mind control to killing.

Completely in agreement with that bit, the rest of your argument, not so much! ;o)

A better parallel than killing for mind control is slavery - you're removing people's freedom, and forcing them to perform actions of your choosing against their will.

Personally I'm voting for the pew-pew eye lazors rather than any kind of return of slavery thanks - no matter how well intentioned ;o)

 

[Ryotknife]

Could mind control be used for good? Certainly, but i would say the risks outweigh the benefits. If a single person has that power, it is too easy for them to develop a god complex, and then things go downhill real fast (see deathnote and code geass). If it is technology, good luck regulating it and not letting every yahoo have some sort of smuggled version. I get that we as humans love to push boundaries and see what we can do, and thats admirable, but there are certain things that we are better off not knowing.

 

[Jack Action]

I fail to see how people equate mind control to killing.

Completely in agreement with that bit, the rest of your argument, not so much! ;o)

A better parallel than killing for mind control is slavery - you're removing people's freedom, and forcing them to perform actions of your choosing against their will.

Personally I'm voting for the pew-pew eye lazors rather than any kind of return of slavery thanks - no matter how well intentioned ;o)

But don't you see, it wouldn't be slavery, it'd be fixing the people who think wrong. It's okay if the people doing it agree with you.

Edit, actually, I can think of one ethical use for mind control: implanting an order as deep as possible that the very concept of using mind control be unthinkable.

 

[DEAD34345]

-snip-

The short answer is this: If you have to ask the question; "do the ends justify the means?", or make the statement; "the ends justify the means." You can be fairly assured that the ends most certainly do not justify the means, it's a platitude to assuage one's own guilt in a matter. Nothing more, nothing less, because such statements are almost universally used to justify the most horrific crimes in human history.

That's a silly thing to say. People and society in general asks itself that question all the time, and as it turns out, yes the ends often do justify the means. Trapping and imprisoning people is bad, but it's worth it to protect other people from dangerous criminals. Taking peoples' money off of them is bad, but it's worth it if that money is then used to provide public services that wouldn't otherwise be possible[footnote]Unless you're a really radical libertarian or anarchist or something I guess.[/footnote]. Going to war and killing people is bad, but most people are pretty glad we went to war in 1939 and eventually put an end to some of those horrific crimes you were talking about.

OT: Any action can be ethical or unethical depending on its results, as far as I'm concerned. I'm pretty firmly in the consequentialist camp when it comes to morality, in case I haven't already made it obvious. If you mind controlled someone to save the lives of a 100 others that would be clearly morally good to me.

Even if that's not good enough, and you think there's something uniquely horrible about being mind controlled that makes it worse than death, there's still the possibility that someone could be mind controlled to prevent lots of other people from being mind controlled, so it could still be ethical.

 

[Skatologist]

Depends on your philosophical school of thought. Utilitarians/consequentialists are likely all for it while deontologists like myself find such actions repugnant. It clearly disregards someone's autonomy in the most severe way.

The only way I would personally be okay with it would be if people consented to their mind control in order to live happier, more productive lives. I'm sure at least a few people would be fine with living like that, but I would find it ironic if people were claiming this would be 100% ethical but be averse to having their minds violated for the sake of bettering themselves and society at large.

 

[FalloutJack]

Well, as David Tennant would say in Doctor Who, "It's Complicated". Plenty of room for bad stuff, true, but on the other hand Professor Xavier. BAM! Nice guy, mind powers. So yeah. It can, but it's not always, and you have to be a bald paraplegic to do good or...something.

*Shrugs*

 

[I can't enter my old name]

I fail to see how people equate mind control to killing.

Completely in agreement with that bit, the rest of your argument, not so much! ;o)

A better parallel than killing for mind control is slavery - you're removing people's freedom, and forcing them to perform actions of your choosing against their will.

Personally I'm voting for the pew-pew eye lazors rather than any kind of return of slavery thanks - no matter how well intentioned ;o)

I think it's only slavery if you keep doing it repeatedly or completely control someone. A slave would probably hate that the fact he or she has no free will. I'd say it's more like brainwashing. However, if you do it just to change people's views by a little, then I think it's like having a persuasion option in a dialogue tree that always succeeds.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

No.

One way or the other, you're forcing someone to do something when they have no resistance.

It doesn't matter whether it's to end world hunger or cure cancer, you're still not trusting them to fulfill that "goodness" by themselves and feel that an application of force and removal of free will is necessary.

It's about as ethical as putting a gun to someone's head.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

It's always unethical, but that doesn't mean there are no situations where it wouldn't be justified to use.
Mind controlling someone is basically on the same level as denying someone's existence. I don't see how something like that could be ethical. Especially since sometimes bad things end up having a positive effect in the grand schemes so you can't just say "he was evul!!!1".
Fighting fire with fire makes a pyromaniac and not a firefighter. You might extinguish the fire but you're still playing with fire.

EDIT:
Although after reading Skatologist's post, if someone actually asked to be mind controller for a happier and more productive life, it would go more towards the gray area instead of black. But I still wouldn't call it ethical.

 

[BarkBarker]

It's surely not ethical....gets good results dammit but hell I think just manipulating the uncontrollable workings of the human psychology is a little unethical, so this would be a huge no no.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

The mind control is THE most abhorrent power there can be due to my philosophy "let people do whatever the hell they want".
(including but not limited to suicide etc)

The power to override the wills - robbing of the ANY freedom a person can have! Truly, the most evil power there can be, and that is why I want it if i get a chance. And yes, it can be used for the good - that is, good of the mind-controller! I would finally live the life I wanted.


You know, only good any power can serve is for the good of the power-owner. Because power owner DEFINES the good he/she uses them for. Even if that person uses it for the existing value system... that would only mean that power-owner is champion of the such "good".

 

[DementedSheep]

I don't think it's ever ethical but sometimes the results trump ethics. If you have a hostage situation and mind-controlling them is a hell of a lot more reliable than trying to shoot them or talk them down then you would be a fool not to. The hostages lives are worth more than a breach of ethics and violation to the aggressors freedom. I doubt the hostages would be willing to lay down their lives so you can make a statement about freedom.

Long term changes to a person rather than an emergency response? that's different, I find this to be worse than just jailing or executing them. A grey area with this is if the person was willing to undergo mind alteration as it is their choice. A very very uncomfortable grey area that would depend heavily on the whole situation is mind-controlling a politician or influential figure to prevent a war or violent riot but I lean more towards no with that.

Regardless of intent anyone having this power would be terrifying.