Except that’s not what ideology is. Does everyone in the Catholic church think in lockstep? Does everyone who is a capitalist think in lockstep?
Ideology does not enforce conformity in thinking. Especially in cases with ideologies that don’t require conformity and are highly tolerant of diversity and even disagreement. It is entirely possible for people with the same ideology to disagree on a topic, just as it’s possible I have changed my mind about a subject compared to, say, 20 years ago.
For example, you could have a group of people sharing an ideology that protecting the environment is extremely important. There could still be considerable disagreement on what to deal with first: microplastics? Clean water? preserving habitat? Or if everyone does agree that, say, reducing greenhouse gas is important there could still be differences of opinion of whether to tackle emissions first, or develop “scrubbing” tech to remove greenhouse gasses from the air, or reducing use of all energy.
There’s nothing in the OP that says everyone will think exactly alike, or dictating that other people think exactly as you do. I certainly don’t require that of other people. I’m willing to change my position based on new information or evidence - an attitude I certainly wish was more widespread than it currently is.
Really? Because I can already give you just one example of someone who does not agree with this. Sometimes one might use lethal force to protect someone else, eh? And that would be wrong? Sorry, I have to agree with Seanette.
Would it really end all of those things? Or would there still be people who believe that those things are wrong, but who do them anyway because of a desire or compulsion that is strong enough to cause them to do what they believe to be immoral?
And I have no illusions that I’m the greatest force for good in the world. But I don’t see that as being the central issue here.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I happen to hold beliefs that put me in the middle of the morality and ideology spectrum. I am the average.
So the question, as I see it, is would the world benefit by having everyone else join me in that average middle position? Would the benefits of converting all of the horrible people in the world balance out the harm caused by losing all the great people in the world?
I tend to feel it would. I feel the horrible people cause a disproportionate amount of harm. One really bad person can ruin the lives of thousands of other people.
But I’m not certain. And lacking that certainty, I would ultimately choose to not make the change.
Did you say a magic button? I always wanted to do some real magic. And as a sociopath I see no reason not to, given the chance. What could go wrong? No more morals! Nihilism finally triumphs!
The snag is that
magic button that when pressed makes every single person in the world have the same morals and ideological beliefs as you (bolding mine)
seems to me to imply that people not yet born will be exempt from my morals and beliefs. OTOH as my morals and beliefs are firmly against having children that would only leave the babies already conceived but not yet born, which would be roughly 80 to 100 million babies for the next nine months, and then stop. Sounds fine.
At the risk of nitpicking, such a magic button could also greatly increase war and killing if the beliefs or ideology are too blunt and not surgical enough.
For instance, an ideology of “Everyone should fight vigorously for what is righteous and good and stop being actionless about it” would probably lead to WW3 almost immediately, given that every aggressor thinks they’re fighting for a right cause.
..done anything particularly proactive about climate change.
..done anything particularly proactive about eliminating poverty.
..done anything particularly proactive about eliminating war.
..done anything particularly proactive about drug abuse.
I want passionate people working on those problems (none of which would instantly go away from an adjustment in morals, IMO) but clearly, speaking from my lifetime of experience, I am not one of those people who devotes all their energy to a cause.
My ideology requires freedom of thought. I’m not even in lockstep with myself most of the time.
My morality dictates much less overall harm than what appears to be the current status quo.
Overall, I can’t foresee things being worse, and I’m not going to give up the chance to make a positive change based on nebulous “what-ifs” or a fear of having to take responsibility if it all goes pear-shaped.
Which suggests to me they will indeed be unable to change their minds.
While my ideas have changed over time I don’t see that as a key problem here. It’s one of the cornerstones of MY “ideology” that others can and should have different viewpoints and beliefs than I do.
But if you press the button, they won’t. That’s one of the reasons I wouldn’t press it.
It wouldn’t make people automatons, but it would be like magically brainwashing them, which seems pretty unethical.
Yeah, I’m a relatively harmless idiot, so it could be argued that making everyone like me might reduce the total amount of harm in the world, but the level of coercion that this magic button implies is a massive harm, ethically.
I suppose another way to look at this is to make it not about myself. There isn’t anyone I can think of in all the world that I would propose as a candidate to forcibly make everyone else conform to.
Alternatively, it might overwrite significant parts of their personality and memories. Say someone is an enthusiastic capitalist because they grew up in a shitty Soviet state (This isn’t just an Ayn Rand thing. I have at least two acquaintances for which this is true.). If you’re a socialist, how does this work? Does it just rewrite their childhood memories? Totally change the context so they seem positive instead of negative? Or maybe they live in eternal internal conflict, and they just get a painful shock if they try to deviate from the imposed ideology.
Incredible that anyone would willingly rewrite the personality of all of their loved ones, let alone the whole world.
My question is whether it’s more of a harm than, say, what’s happening in Gaza, or Sudan, or Ukraine, or with ICE, or with whatever atrocities are going to happen in the next decade. I wouldn’t do it for a lark, but the massive harm avoided is much, much greater IMO than the harm caused.
I said choice, not free will. Free will is an incoherent concept, but choice is not; something as simple as a computer program with an IF/THEN conditional statement makes choices.
Not at all; I am not under some magical compulsion, unlike the victims of the Button. And the OP states that they will believe exactly as I do until the day they die.
Compelling a specific moral and ideological system on everyone pretty much guarantees a certain degree of universal mental coercion, even on the person who pushed the button. I can imagine morals handling a range of environments, but quite a few ideologies don’t have that kind of flexibility.
We really don’t know what’s under the hood of that infernal button, and as you noted later the two minute time limit doesn’t sound promising. We don’t even know the mechanism. Does wrong-think result in a spell in the agony booth until beliefs are corrected?
I wonder about future generations as well, who are no longer constrained by the infernal button. And the extent to which my morals and ideology privilege my situation (and would morph for other situations). I can imagine making a considered no-time-limit decision to press the button but as it is this scenario screams of unintended consequence.
I suspect they’d either decide that the imposed morals are the Will of God or a plot by Satan (or other-culture equivalents), considering how obviously artificial they are.
Magically, over the course of some reasonable period of time, say a maximum of 12 months, everyone in the world whose morals and ideological beliefs are worse than mine (don’t worry how this can be measured - it’s magic) will find themselves in a situation magically tailored to infallibly create a moment of epiphany, the result of which will be that they have a change of heart and adopt some other set of morals and ideological beliefs that are better than mine or at least no worse than mine.
There’s no force - just persuasion that is magically customised so that it gives everyone the ideal opportunity to decide to be better than me.
There’s no forced uniformity - everyone will choose different new beliefs, they just won’t be awful ones.
As a result of pressing the ‘Scrooge Them!’ button, and without undergoing any change myself, I eventually become the worst human (because everyone else is better) I’d be tempted to press it.
