It’s MY magic button, I think I know how it works.
So presumably you disagree with schools that start teaching children, right from the kindergarten level, to share their toys, be kind to each other, and not hurt each other either physically or verbally? And as children mature, the morality lessons get more nuanced but they’re still there, like taking responsibility for environmental stewardship. Are you against that, too? None of that is “consensual”. My premise in pressing the magic button is that it produces an epiphany in those who failed to learn those important lessons that are necessary for a functional society. The society that we presently have in relatively civilized countries functions, to the extent that it does, not because of those evil people, but in spite of them, and because many of them are in prison.
I don’t believe most of the evil in the world is the result of “unscrupulous venal reprobates, evil to the core, entirely devoid of empathy for anyone but themselves”. I think it’s mostly caused by ordinary people who try to be moral, don’t kick puppies, and only delight in the misfortunes of others to a normal degree. Evil is a result of human failings, not some group of uniquely terrible people you could eliminate to solve all your problems. I don’t think the button could change human nature, and it doesn’t seem like it would force people to follow their newly-instilled ideas of morality. Besides, I’m just as subject to these failings as anyone else.
And like I said, I’m not confident enough that my beliefs are correct to want to magically impose them on the whole world, never mind all the ethical problems it invokes. Having a diversity of views is a good thing.
But it doesn’t. It forcibly imposes an immutable belief system on everyone, while twisting the rest of their mind so they can’t even resent it. Nobody will “learn” a thing, their minds were subjected to a delete-and-replace. There won’t be any epiphany; rather the opposite, they’ll have a new ideology imposed on them with no idea why or how.
And even if they could learn anything from it, what would they learn except “It’s OK to mind control people into obedience”? They weren’t persuaded, they don’t believe in their new ideology because they were given good arguments or evidence, it was just forced on them and their capacity for thought crippled to ensure compliance.
Since my ideology is mostly “people are capable of running things and should be free to run things on their own, individually and in groups, without controlling others or exploiting others, so let’s cheerfully dismantle the systems that prevent this,” I’m tempted to press the button.
And if you read my stipulated conditions for pressing the button, I agree with this. I specifically said I was not aiming to change anyone’s ideology, precisely because diversity is a good thing, and there are no absolutes in political or economic ideologies. However, being a totally self-serving asshole with zero empathy for others does touch on moral absolutes. Contributing to a charity that helps the needy is an absolute moral good; stealing from that charity for self-enrichment is an absolute moral wrong. These absolutes derive from a presumed consensus that we want to live in a peaceful and functional society and not a violent and dysfunctional one.
That’s your concept of how the button works. It’s not my concept. As I said, there are many conditions under which I would not press such a button. Put another way, I’d rather that everyone currently serving long prison sentences not have to serve them any more, because they’d be peaceful and productive contributors to society.
Your concept of how it works doesn’t resemble the description at all. And mind controlling prisoners into meat puppets so they are more profitable is disgusting.
And it turns their sentence into a lifelong one. Slaves until they die.
I’ve never really thought of using rape as a means of self defence. I suppose I just never really thought it would be effective.
Good thing I didn’t say anything about that, then. But it would mean that a woman could walk up to a man and start stabbing him and all he could do about it is quietly say “please stop”.
You do realize that a woman can walk up to a man while holding a .38 and pump 6 bullets into him and all he could do about it is quietly say “please don’t shoot me.”
You literally replied to a comment about stopping men from raping and beating women with an argument that this would make men defenceless.
This (by which I mean your last several comments) is a lot of moral outrage over something that isn’t real.
Well, I agree we shouldn’t let Der_Trihs push his button. I’m okay with the lot of you pushing yours, though. You have my permission.
But according to the OP, the button does change ideology. And as far as I can see, it wouldn’t change empathy - not that empathy is any guarantee of doing the right thing, since having empathy for one person or group of people can be the motivation for doing things that hurt others. I’m really not sure what the result of pushing the button would be.
Then I wouldn’t press that button, but for the sake of clarity, I postulated the conditions for a button that I would press. And wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if we had that button.
No, it wouldn’t. Some of our values are inherently zero-sum, like our much vaunted “freedom”, because it involves laws and regulation. My freedom to do whatever the hell I want may infringe on your freedom to live a peaceful life. But empathy and compassion are not zero-sum, they’re basic and universal moral values. Just because I’m kind to a puppy doesn’t mean I have to kick a kitten.
This is a tricky subject that requires some nuance.
I think it is unethical to coerce children into adult ideologies (political, religious, etc.) that they don’t have the capacity to internalize. You aren’t convincing them of anything; you’re simply using the power imbalance to force them to “believe” something. Of course it’s not a real belief that you’ve imposed since belief requires understanding. But it’s possible to coerce a child into behaving as if they believed a thing (maybe trotting some sign around a protest or repeating a slogan they memorized).
That doesn’t apply to the simpler types of moral positions that you’ve described. It is possible (at least sometimes) to convince a child not to hurt another based on things they can understand, like self-interest and empathy. And it certainly seems as if moral lessons have better sticking power when the child understands the motivation as opposed to when they’ve just been ordered to behave a certain way or threatened with punishment for doing otherwise.
Another factor is that the limited capacity of children is just a biological reality. It’s impossible to avoid the power imbalance, even if we can do some things to limit it. There’s no way you completely avoid a degree of coercion.
But that’s not true of adults, who can choose to not coerce other adults in an imbalanced relationship. And they can sure as hell choose not to push this hypothetical button.
There’s no nuance in the examples I cited. Those are objective moral values that are essential to a functional, compassionate, and peaceful society. Children need to learn those values because they’re just children, and it’s our responsibility as adults to teach them. The problem arises not with the abstract ethics of “coercion”, but with the fact that many of the things adults teach children are bullshit. I’m looking at you, some of the crazy religions of the world, just as one example. Or the morally bankrupt entitlements that some of the wealthy teach their children, whether or not they do it consciously. It’s ironic that you need a license to drive a car, or operate a radio transmitter, but no qualifications at all to raise a human being and send the product of neglect or misguided fanaticism out into the world.
I don’t share your authoritarian beliefs. Whether an action is coercive or not is fundamental to whether it’s ethical.
There’s nothing “authoritarian” about my beliefs. You’re just throwing in the loaded word “coercion” when what we’re really talking about is “teaching”.
If there’s no abuse of the power dynamic, it’s just teaching. If there is, it’s forcing your beliefs on someone with limited capacity to respond.