Suppose you’ve been told by an infallible oracle a target person is not dangerous or criminal, but is a bad person on the inside. Now, you’re given the ability to read this person’s mind, but only when they are acting badly, such as being deceptive. So, you normally wouldn’t read the target’s mind, but whenever they do something bad, or recall something bad they did, you see/read. Would you consider this okay/moral/decent to do? Assume the target is aware of these rules.
As a follow-up question, would you consider it okay/moral/decent to read the target’s mind anytime you want, even if they’re not being bad, just out of curiosity? The target would know you’re reading his mind and feel uncomfortable as well as distressed from ever being misread, but the justification is that the infallible oracle told you the target is a bad person.
I personally think both these actions are wrong. I’m curious how wrong or okay others view these hypotheticals. Thoughts?
It’s wrong, but a weird kind of wrong. For instance, if you read murderous intent in his thoughts, it would be wrong not to act on this knowledge.
Put it this way: it’s wrong to eavesdrop on the neighbors. But if they have a great big violent fight, which you can’t help but overhear, it’s wrong not to call the police to report a domestic disturbance.
The source of this knowledge is scary: mind-reading is a terrible violation of privacy. But the knowledge itself can’t simply be ignored. With great power comes great responsibility.
(Hey, seriously, comic books are a great place for researching hypotheticals of this kind.)
I read a science fiction novel where a character could read minds. The objection to it there was it violated someone’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. I think that is a legitimate concern.
I remember a different sf story where the judge ruled that evidence gained from esp was admissible, as it is the “evidence of one’s senses.” If someone says to me, “I killed Cock Robin,” that’s evidence I can recite in court. Well, if someone thinks to me the same confession, that (per the story) can come out in court.
One BIG variable is: how many people have this power? If there’s only one guy in the world, then we should (I think) limit his ability to testify, because there’s no way to verify what he did or did not actually perceive.
But if one person in every five could read minds, things are really different. (Not to mention all the other social upheaval!)
I don’t think it’s OK or moral to read someone else’s diary, or facebook account, or mail, or listen to their phone calls. So I guess it’s not OK or moral to read their minds, either.
I suppose they might be bad-tempered, self-centered, deceitful, prejudiced, or small-minded, or have any other negative trait, but not in a way that is seriously harmful to others.
Dammit. As I said (before you asked) I’m a gentleman, therefore I do not lie.
My mother took a combination of prenatal vitamins and an antiemetic during pregnancy that I think are responsible for my ability. I call what I see in my mind’s eye “little dreams”. They are similar to normal dreams, but I experience the entire thing in a fraction of a second.
So, mostly like the lot of us, with the possible exception of a few saints. No, thank you, I don’t want any brain implant allowing the government to listen in on my thoughts!
I should actually have phrased it as (if that changes your viewpoint): I suppose they might be VERY bad-tempered, self-centered, deceitful, prejudiced, AND small-minded, AND have any other negative trait, but not in a way that is seriously harmful to others.