If you could completely control another person’s thoughts and actions without them being aware of it, would it be unethical to do so, even if only for a moment? For example, say a person is faced with the choice of pushing button A or button B. Both buttons do absolutely nothing, but the point is that the person is free to choose. If, in controlling that person’s mind you force him or her to push the button that you want, is that unethical? I suppose you could say that it is, since even though you are not harming them or causing any harm to come to them, you are taking away their freedom of choice.
But is that removal of choice always unethical in itself? Suppose you mentally forced a person to do something good, or prevented them from something bad? Take another example, where person A is walking down the street in an ornery mood. Person A is a certifiable asshole, and has decided that he is going to kick the homeless man he spies on the corner, just because he feels like it. If you mentally prevent him from doing so and instead force him to smile at the homeless man and say a cheery “good morning”, is that unethical?
If not, then where’s the line? How far is acceptable? Is it ok to force Person A to give the homeless man some change? Is it ok to force Person A to join habitat for Humanity and start building homes for the needy? Is it ok to compel a rich criminal to donate thousands to a worthy cause?
If it causes no harm and the “subject” is unaware of being compelled, is it wrong? Or does their right to freedom of will completely trump any other consideration?
Why? If you have not harmed them and they are not aware of being compelled, how is it a violation? Or does the abrogation of their will in itself put any such act completely beyond the pale, no matter the circumstances?
It is ethical under the same circumstances where it would be ethical to physically obstruct someone from doing what he wants. For instance, if someone were about to open fire on a crowd it would be perfectly ethical to stop him – whether you do so with a flying tackle or mind control powers (assuming you had both capabilities) is a matter of tactical discretion.
A good point, but are the two methods exactly equivalent in terms of morality? Or does the fact that you’re taking over someone’s mind make it more abhorrent than physically restraining them? Mr Dribble is of the opinion that it’s *always *unethical.
It’s difficult to compare it to a real-life situation of compulsion, because the only means we have at our disposal are inevitably ethically problematic themselves. I mean, if you forced someone to press the does-nothing button at gunpoint, or through blackmail, or through physically forcing them, then the cruelty of the means tends to make you overlook the question of whether there’s something inherently unethical about the ends.
I’d argue it would be unethical on the basis that you’re robbing someone of their personhood. And I’m an ethical seperatist, so in case of using your mind control powers to stop someone shooting into a crowd I’d say you were doing something unethical for ethical purposes, without the one cancelling the other out. Necessary, though.
If I roofie you, rape you, and you wake up completely unaware that you’ve been raped, does that mean you weren’t raped? That I’m not a rapist? That what I did wasn’t wrong? Same-same.
Sorry, not same-same. This is not equivalent to rape. If I mentally compel someone to push button A instead of button B, I have not instigated any sexual contact with them or even physically touched them at all. I have not exposed them to any risk of pregnancy or sexually-transmitted disease, I have not injured them or penetrated them, so why do you see this as a gross violation on the same level as rape?
It’s a “gross violation” of self, same as rape. possibly even more so, because I am even more my mind than I am my body. You have, indeed, penetrated me - penetrated my mind with your mind, just the same as if you’d penetrated my body with your body.
Humans are social animals, we have a variety of instinctive and man made social tools to control each other’s minds and behaviors so our civilization can function without excess divisions and disturbances.
What makes mind control less ethical than shame? Shame is a form of mind control, it punishes someone until they stop acting in a way deemed threatening to the collective.
I’m sure the power would be abused if/when it is created.
Shame is a tool that only has a possibility of working, and is also dependent on the will of the shamee. The mind control in the OP has no such limitations.
I think this kind of relates to the argument about free will a few weeks ago. If we are truly at the whims of our unconscious minds, which are at the whims of internal physiochemical process interacting with the external environment, then our minds are already being “controlled”. I don’t know if I press a certain button because I want to or because I have a certain gene that predisposes me to pressing that button. And I can never know.
But I think there is a difference between you controlling my mind versus that kind of mind control. If I do something wrong under my own volition, I can still accept responsibility for it. For instance, even if I kill someone in a fit of rage, I should be punished for it despite the fact that I was “out of control”. The act of punishment will perhaps teach me the importance of self-control, so that the next time I let my anger get away from me, maybe I will pause and reflect on past mistakes. But it really wouldn’t be my fault if you made me kill someone. And what’s worse, I wouldn’t know this. So while in prison, I’d be forcing myself to learn a lesson that I wouldn’t need to learn.
As far as doing good goes, it’s a trickier ethical dilemma. But I guess one argument against controlling someone’s mind for good is that “good” is entirely subjective and depends on an individual’s morals. You may think it’s good to help rescue a cat stuck in a tree. But the guy you “force” to climb the tree may beg to differ. He may think that risking his own life for the life of a furry mammal is ridiculous. You may think giving money to a homeless person is good. The woman you “force” to donate to a panhandler may have wanted to spend that money another way–perhaps for a do-good project that she actually cared about.
It would be ethical with their consent. An example that gets mentioned in fiction on occasion would be giving someone who wants to quit using an addictive drug a counter-compulsion to not use the drug.
It’s a matter of interpretation whether or not you have “touched” them when you take control of their minds. You are certainly performing a physical manipulation of the substance of the brain. Whether it’s via flashing lights, or microwaves, or subsonics, or some not-yet-discovered “psionic” communication, you are, ultimately, “touching” their brain with some kind of signal.
The comparison to drugging someone is, in my opinion, completely apt. You’re doing something to their brain to cause it to function in a way you choose, and entirely against their will.
And, sure, you can come up with contrived scenarios where it’s moral and proper. You can do that for shooting someone dead, too.
My thoughts exactly, and lots and lots of other examples abound. Almost any kind of popular advertising has some subliminal aspects, usually just the use of certain words and imagery to invoke positive reactions and emotions. Virtually any book on management, when it gets to the subject of personnel management, is essentially a book on psychology. We as a society basically engage in forms of mind control in every way possible within the limits of what is, in fact, possible.
The difference between shame and the kind of mind control the OP is talking about is that not everyone responds to shaming. Some people are emboldened by shame (Harriet Tubman). Some people feel ashamed in response to shame, but it doesn’t change their behavior (like the alcoholic). I believe that choice is an illusion, but I still believe there are a variety of different paths a person can take in response to shame, if they’ve been educated properly.
But mind control doesn’t allow for any self-empowerment. A psychotherapist can’t teach you how to resist Bibliovore’s power over you if ya’ll don’t know he has power over you.
No, it’s not ethical. Forcing Person A to smile and greet a homeless man, give him change, or volunteer at Habitat for Humanity would be unethical whether you do so with the power of your mind, or at knife-point. Preventing Person A from kicking the homeless man with your superior mental prowess strikes me as more ethical than doing so with the threat of physical harm, though.
Still, I would do these things and much more if I had that ability. I’m pretty sure power would corrupt me. Absolutely.
