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

[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.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

First of all, I'm of the opinion that certain things are always bad, but the good that they can bring can outweigh the negative. For example, killing is always bad, however, there may be situations where not killing someone is worse because of some other factor. Like, suppose, protecting your children. A possible example, letting someone kill your children when you have the power to stop them is worse than killing someone. The act of murder becomes no less bad, but the circumstances surrounding it make the "good" option.

Secondly, we need to distinguish what sort of mind control we're talking about first. Is this taking the reins of someone's mind for a time, or is it changing their mind for the greater good? The latter I consider one of the most horrible things that you can do to someone, it strikes at someone fundamentally as a being with agency. This becomes a different situation if it's consensual, but I don't think that's the primary case being discussed.

Assuming the taking the reins version, I think it depends strongly on what you make someone do. If someone's about to kill someone and you stop them, that's a very different deal than if you made someone kill someone else for the greater good. One is analogous to physically restraining someone, while the other is compelling someone to do something they might not want to. I think both are still bad, and worse than mere physical restraint, but the second is much worse.

Assuming the mind warping version, this is where I think it's almost impossible to do something ethical with. The notion that someone could tailor your thoughts to their liking is absolutely terrifying. You'd have no means of knowing what of your thoughts and opinions were consensual and which were imposed on you. There's an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that touches on this, although it was with removing memories instead. Character A changed the memories of character B to make them forget that they'd ever had a fight. A and B were romantically involved. It's an invasion of a part of your life in which you're most guaranteed privacy and it robs you of your agency or ability to rely at all on your own experiences. I can't think of anything that would make me more certain to break up with someone.

Uh... that was a bit of a detour. In the mind warping version, it'd either have to be consensual (in which it's fine), your changes would have to be incredibly minor, or it would have to be necessary to prevent something absolutely catastrophic.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I would put it in the same vein as killing. Horrific thing to do at random but justifiable in the right situation(Thought always debatable).

You mentioned saving the would be suicie victim, how far do you take that? Do you simply place a sort of geas on him that he just physically cannot ever commit suicide, do you just make him not commit suicide right now to give him more time to think, or do you go into his personality and rewrite fundamental parts of his outlook on life so that he becomes a happier person?

Geas huh. That reminds me of an anime where that exact thing happened. The person it was done to did not especially appreciate it.

come to think of it, that entire anime basically comes down to a minor variation of this exact premise.
The main character can mind control people. (albeit with some limitations. Most serious of which being it only works once on any given person)

That, most assuredly did not come across as anything 'good'.
What the main character used it for was really no different than having an absurdly powerful gun.
I wouldn't call what they did 'good' or 'bad', it was in fact the height of moral ambiguity.
(Both in terms of what they used their power for, and the other actions they took)

So... In the end it would be difficult to say.

I think, in some ways, mind control can arguably be worse than death.
But it really depends on what happens.

If you use mind control to make someone not kill you, that's one thing, but if you fundamentally change everything they are, or make them forever obedient to you...
Or make them do all kinds of actions that are in no way in their own self-interest even slightly...?

This is one of those things that just does not have an easy answer.

But on the whole, I would consider most mind control based actions on par with killing someone.
With the same moral implications really.

If you mess with someone's mind to the point that their fundamental beliefs and personality has been radically altered, then you've come pretty close to killing them in some sense.
They may well technically be alive, but can they really be said to be the same person?

I personally think the longer the consequence of your meddling lasts, the more morally questionable it becomes.
(Also, the nature of the action you take)

Getting someone to kill themselves is basically murder.
Getting them to leave you alone when they would otherwise have tried to pick a fight isn't really much worse than punching them in the face a few times and convincing them the hard way that they shouldn't fight with you.

Stopping them from shooting up a crowd is roughly justifiable on the same grounds that shooting someone that is moments away from killing hundreds of people is.

But if you then change everything about who they are, and why they were intending to do that mass shooting in the first place? That's... That starts to get pretty questionable...

 

[AntiChri5]

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.

Yes, the undesirables must be reprogrammed.

 

[Frission]

It's very unethical. As a tool some here have argued well how useful it could be, but it's simply too open to abuse by other people, even by those with noble goals. Or should I say especially those with noble goals, since if there's one thing that we've all learned is that people have different views and opinions.

There is no universal 'good'.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

In the same way as there is Ethical Hacking, yes. Intrusion of peoples private lives/actions would be ethical if it could be used to save that person, for instance. Like influencing them to not commit suicide, or mass murder. Or to help them make correct decisions to save them in a natural disaster, that kind of thing.

 

[Fappy]

Sure, it could be used for good. I'd say there are very few situations in which it would be appropriate to use, however.

For example, a man has a gun to someone's head and is declaring they are about to kill the person. You have a gun on you and a clear shot. You could kill the gunman with your own weapon or you can use mind control to command him to release his hostage and disarm himself. With mind control, no one dies in this situation!

Prof. X has used mind control for good several times in the past.

 

[Lieju]

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.

That kind of stuff came to my mind too. And this kind of skill or technology could probably be used to treat mental illnesses as well. Obviously there would be all kinds of ethical concerns, but medication we have already and that's used to treat mental illnesses can fuck with a person's mind...

Also what kind of mind control are we talking about? The kind where a person takes over the body of another like they're a puppet? Or something more subtle, like influencing emotions and alleviating anxiety for example?

 

[Asita]

I'm sure an addict would spend what little they had left for a Killgrave to order them to stop wanting or needing drugs, assuming that it worked on a deep level and didn't leave you screaming inside of your own head. Informed consent would be the key. Short of that, I think it's "acceptable" in any situation in which we'd normally sanction killing. I find it hard to believe that telling someone to "STOP" is worse than shooting them in the face.

Given how infrequently most people outside of the military or law enforcement are in a position to ethically and legally kill people, that seems like a pretty niche application. Anything else, without the awareness and consent of the victim? No, fuck you rapist.

So you're saying that Obi-wan's mind trick was highly unethical then?

 

[Sean Renaud]

The answer is yes and an easy uncomplicated yes. Mind control could be used for good and the OP lists a number of scenarios where it could.

The proper question is whether it's a good thing to do despite the results. That's a little hazy but I'm still in the yes camp over all.

 

[Vahir]

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.

Oh, that's a point...should anyone who takes an oath to perform a certain duty be mind controlled in order to uphold it?

Soldiers, police, politicians and so on.

If they are proven to have broken that trust? Yes. As a standard? No. Soldiers and Police officers are generally better people than criminals, and so are some politicians.

Criminals already have broken that trust.

Goddamn. Is nobody going to point out how horrible this sounds?

I think most criminals would, you know, rather not be criminals.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'd like to point out how evenly split the poll is, and how interesting/non-inflammatory the run of the discussion has been. What a delightful thread. OP is a gentleman and a scholar.

 

[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.

Oh, that's a point...should anyone who takes an oath to perform a certain duty be mind controlled in order to uphold it?

Soldiers, police, politicians and so on.

If they are proven to have broken that trust? Yes. As a standard? No. Soldiers and Police officers are generally better people than criminals, and so are some politicians.

Criminals already have broken that trust.

Goddamn. Is nobody going to point out how horrible this sounds?

I think most criminals would, you know, rather not be criminals.

You mean apart from the gang-bangers who think crime makes them look cool? Or the drug dealers that could get a real job, but instead leach of human misery?

Everybody has a choice when it comes to crime. Once you abuse that choice, it gets taken away.

 

[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.

Oh, that's a point...should anyone who takes an oath to perform a certain duty be mind controlled in order to uphold it?

Soldiers, police, politicians and so on.

If they are proven to have broken that trust? Yes. As a standard? No. Soldiers and Police officers are generally better people than criminals, and so are some politicians.

Criminals already have broken that trust.

Goddamn. Is nobody going to point out how horrible this sounds?

I think most criminals would, you know, rather not be criminals.

You mean apart from the gang-bangers who think crime makes them look cool? Or the drug dealers that could get a real job, but instead leach of human misery?

Everybody has a choice when it comes to crime. Once you abuse that choice, it gets taken away.

You think that gang-bangers' primary motivation is to "look cool"? Not an economic motive, or a safety motive, or a matter of social status and practical gains... just "lookin' cool"?

What the actual fuck.

You literally just listed 'social status', which is pretty much what i was implying.

Jesus, your acting like i shot your dog or something. Why are you acting so shocked just because i dont believe every criminal is a nice person at heart?

 

[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.

Oh, that's a point...should anyone who takes an oath to perform a certain duty be mind controlled in order to uphold it?

Soldiers, police, politicians and so on.

If they are proven to have broken that trust? Yes. As a standard? No. Soldiers and Police officers are generally better people than criminals, and so are some politicians.

Criminals already have broken that trust.

Goddamn. Is nobody going to point out how horrible this sounds?

I think most criminals would, you know, rather not be criminals.

You mean apart from the gang-bangers who think crime makes them look cool? Or the drug dealers that could get a real job, but instead leach of human misery?

Everybody has a choice when it comes to crime. Once you abuse that choice, it gets taken away.

You think that gang-bangers' primary motivation is to "look cool"? Not an economic motive, or a safety motive, or a matter of social status and practical gains... just "lookin' cool"?

What the actual fuck.

You literally just listed 'social status', which is pretty much what i was implying.

You think that social status = coolness? No, not even if you eat the dictionary and crap it back out. You also implied nothing, you explicitly said a lot. Lets add this to list of "Words mean things" issues we're racking up here.

Jesus, your acting like i shot your dog or something. Why are you acting so shocked just because i dont believe every criminal is a nice person at heart?

I think you're projecting; you mostly seem a little upset that someone isn't agreeing with you. Pretending that I DID actually agree with you, then acting like I'm upset might really impress high school. Not so much me.

Phhh. I never pretended you agreed with me. I just pointed out you listed something very similar to me. And social status is linked to coolness in gang culture.

I dont seek to impress you, because frankly, you are a random dude on the internet, and i dont honestly care what you think of me or my opinions. The vice versa is also true.

And yes, you are acting upset. Dramatically one lining 'what the actual fuck' is a way to sound shocked.

Not sure what acting upset has to do with highschool to be honest.

 

[spartan231490]

Of course not. Such a thing is absolutely amoral, and has numerous practical problems besides. Which is not to say that I wouldn't use the hell out of such a thing, but it would not be moral to do so.

 

[Asita]

I'm sure an addict would spend what little they had left for a Killgrave to order them to stop wanting or needing drugs, assuming that it worked on a deep level and didn't leave you screaming inside of your own head. Informed consent would be the key. Short of that, I think it's "acceptable" in any situation in which we'd normally sanction killing. I find it hard to believe that telling someone to "STOP" is worse than shooting them in the face.

Given how infrequently most people outside of the military or law enforcement are in a position to ethically and legally kill people, that seems like a pretty niche application. Anything else, without the awareness and consent of the victim? No, fuck you rapist.

So you're saying that Obi-wan's mind trick was highly unethical then?

It would certainly be illegal in the society within which he lived, but since that society was ruled by a dark wizard... I mean, magic tends to play merry hell with ethics.

...Magic? DMSO, I think the dark part of "dark wizard" is more relevant to the ethics of his empire than the wizard part is.

 

[Asita]

I'm sure an addict would spend what little they had left for a Killgrave to order them to stop wanting or needing drugs, assuming that it worked on a deep level and didn't leave you screaming inside of your own head. Informed consent would be the key. Short of that, I think it's "acceptable" in any situation in which we'd normally sanction killing. I find it hard to believe that telling someone to "STOP" is worse than shooting them in the face.

Given how infrequently most people outside of the military or law enforcement are in a position to ethically and legally kill people, that seems like a pretty niche application. Anything else, without the awareness and consent of the victim? No, fuck you rapist.

So you're saying that Obi-wan's mind trick was highly unethical then?

It would certainly be illegal in the society within which he lived, but since that society was ruled by a dark wizard... I mean, magic tends to play merry hell with ethics.

...Magic? DMSO, I think the dark part of "dark wizard" is more relevant to the ethics of his empire than the wizard part is.

Not so much. Ethics tend to be a matter of what you can do. When it takes making your kids working the fields at 7, like little adults, to survive, that's ethical. If you have the magical ability to end a hostage crisis without killing anyone, that's an ethical issue too. Magic and technology produce the same results, new conditions for people to adapt to.

True, but how does that relate to your statement that the situation was complicated by the fact that the society was ruled by a dark wizard and that magic plays merry hell with ethics?

That said, we're getting perhaps a bit too mired down in the particulars of the example. If you'll permit a bit of probing on my part, we got onto this train of thought with your implication that mind control without the awareness and consent of the victim in cases that wouldn't otherwise mandate their death would be highly unethical. Would an application similar to that seen in the Star Wars clip - brief mind control to convince someone to leave you alone and thereby avoid conflict - be an exception to that?

 

[Asita]

I'm saying that conventional definitions of "Law Enforcement" and similar things in my example didn't really apply to a mystical past in a distant galaxy ruled by a dark wizard. It was meant as a kind of global, "Huh, Star Trek ethics, not really practical" statement, that's all.

That said, we're getting perhaps a bit too mired down in the particulars of the example. If you'll permit a bit of probing on my part, we got onto this train of thought with your implication that mind control without the awareness and consent of the victim in cases that wouldn't otherwise mandate their death would be highly unethical. Would the usage seen in the Star Wars clip - brief mind control to convince someone to leave you alone and thereby avoid conflict - be an exception to that?

I doubt it. Given that the aforementioned dark wizard had committed a lengthy and successful genocidal campaign against the light wizards. The total loyalty (inspired by that dark wizardry if you believe Admiral Thrawn) each stormtrooper showed is a part of that. If Obi hadn't waved them away, he would have had to fight them, and we know they would be no match for him. The problem is that he is a rebel/terrorist in that universe, not a cop, but again... dark wizard. Baby killer. So...

...I think avoiding conflict with a jedi is basically avoiding a death.

Again, too mired in the specifics of the example. Its usage here is a shorthand for a kind of application, not a "in this exact situation" kind of thing. Take it outside of Star Wars for a minute. Imagine that, for the sake of example, one kid is using such a mind trick to get some bullies to stop picking on another kid. "You don't need his lunch money. Beating him up isn't worth it. You should stop bothering him. Have a nice day." How does that rank on the ethical scale?