Are you saying if I successfully convinced someone to change their moral/ideological beliefs in a single conversation or multiple conversations over time that I effectively killed them?
If so, that’s a very bizarre definition of killing that virtually no one subscribes to.
If it turns them into somebody unrecognizable, yes. And it’s a definition lots of people ascribe too, because they’ve seen it.
Of course in this case there’s no “convincing”; just people having major chunks of their minds replaced. They’ll probably think of their past self as dead, since according to you they don’t mind that their beliefs and ideology were forcibly replaced and therefore have no emotional attachment to their pre-mindrape self.
Sorry ladies, we can’t force men to stop raping and beating women, because forcing someone to do something is wrong. They have to choose for themselves to not rape women, and if they do rape women, rest assured, we still won’t do anything.
Going back to the OP, the thing that grates on me is the two minute limit.
The pressure to decide quickly is an almost gold-standard giveaway of a scam.
Not to mention that the effect is almost a distillation of every monkey’s-paw or ‘Appointment in Samarra’ story ever told.
I would just look around and say: nice joke, where’s the camera?
This is a really important point.
My understanding of morality is that it exists irrespective of behavior. Serial killers have an innate sense of right and wrong. The issue is, they don’t care whether their actions are in alignment with their morals. And people, including myself, regularly do things that aren’t in alignment with their morals.
We can’t assume that giving everyone the same moral alignment would result in everyone having the same behavior.
Furthermore, I wouldn’t assume that, just because I can’t imagine doing anything really bad now doesn’t mean my circumstances can’t radically change in a way that changes my morals. If someone came and gunned down my whole family or this country fell into civil war, I might find myself doing stuff I never imagined I would do.
Of course the problem with this hypothetical is it took me a good ten minutes to think about all this. Humans are risk-averse, I bet time pressure would turn this on in the lizard brain: “If I don’t act now millions of lives will be lost!”
So I’d wager most people would press the button.
I suppose you could derive a linear order if you conducted an experiment where we clone the universe 8 billion times and in each one, impose a different person’s beliefs on everyone; leave to cook, then measure the effects
What scalar unit would you use for “the effects”?
I’m way closer to pressing this button than I am to pressing one that imposes the whole of my ideologies and beliefs (weaksauce as they are) on everyone. Even though my ideology already includes those things - or at least, I would hope to believe that I am already anti-domestic violence, anti-toxic masculinity, pro women’s health care and pro-equality, but there’s a difference, I think, between excising specific problems vs imposing a whole ideology system.
We already force men to stop that; it’s just that our method of applying the force is not completely effective - in theory, we have already chosen to press the button that stops men from raping and beating women - we just don’t have a button that works.
But there are so many issues, right? The patriarchy is one problem among many. So if we change all the things that are wrong, aren’t we functionally changing everything anyway?
Maybe, but since I am in favour of laws that say men must not, under any circumstances, commit rape, I don’t see how it would be a big problem if we had a way that was 100% effective in enforcing it.
Edit: I imagine it might cause some brand new small problems that would make interesting SF stories, but I feel that we already generally take it for granted that a solution to an egregious problem, at the expense of smaller problems, is an acceptable trade
…But people pushing the button are the opposite of risk-averse; they’re accepting the risk of altering the status quo and potentially making things worse, with the deleterious effects being their responsibility. A risk-averse person would think “If I act something might go wrong, and what might go wrong is entirely unpredictable! I don’t even know how this button works! And things aren’t so bad right now…and if something went wrong, it would be my fault!”.
I would wager most people would not press the button for a number of reasons; some people would be opposed on the “mind control” arguments in this thread; some would distrust it because of the time limit; some would be risk-averse and refuse either out of caution or because they aren’t willing to accept being a moral agent in the scenario; and some people would just think that the button would make things worse, either because they think their morals are inferior or they think a diversity of morality and ideology are important.
My problem personally is that the second you put a time limit on something, my brain ceases to work properly. I can’t even deal with timed video games. When I’m in that state I’m much more likely to act impulsively. The household-famous example of this is when I was playing a timed video game in college involving monkeys dropping by parachute(?) onto platforms and I was freaking out and I’m gliding over an endless expanse of ocean not anywhere near the platform and my husband jokingly yelled, “Release! Release!” And I trusted him and my monkey drowned.
I guess everyone is not me.
I think I wouldn’t push the button because of the lack of time to think it through.
I just hope nobody would be screaming at me, “Push the button! Push the button!”
Especially MY ideologies and beliefs. I mean, of course my thoughts are “right” otherwise I wouldn’t hold them, but it does seem egotistical to force my beliefs on the entire world. I’d feel better about forcing someone else’s beliefs on the world, a good person who (via magic) I can be sure isn’t hiding a dark secret that will create a world with 8.5B latent child molesters.
There are also all sorts of individual problems I would be happy to press the button on, war, violence, patriarchy, racism, greed, social welfare, health care, etc.
As opposed to enslaving men? Why is it OK to rape men’s minds?
One obvious effect would be that the abuse of men would skyrocket because they’d be unable to defend themselves, they couldn’t even raise their voice. And violence agaisnt men is already widely ignored (I note that you show no concern for women attacking men, or even same gender couples abusing each other).
Well, that took a turn…
[quote=“Der_Trihs, post:175, topic:1020093”]One obvious effect would be that the abuse of men would skyrocket because they’d be unable to defend themselves, they couldn’t even raise their voice. And
[/quote]
I fail to see how any of this follows. I think your interpretation of the OP is extremely flawed. I can’t think of anyone whose morals preclude men from defending themselves or yelling for help. And while society as a whole underestimates the abuse of men, i’ve never seen anyone say they approve of it.
I’ve heard both.
We’re not enslaving them. Mind raping is maybe a bit closer, but when you really think about it, men who have no intention of raping or beating women will be unaffected. Men who think women are equals will be unaffected. Men who don’t want to control women’s bodies will be unaffected. Anyone who is markedly changed by this magic button isn’t impressing me as someone whose worldview needs preserving.
Deciding that it’s ok to be violent, that people are lesser than you, that you have the right to force others to bring a pregnancy to term… these things are not inherent parts of your humanity. They’re learned. Someone taught you to fight, to take, they taught you intolerance, and to control others.
Why should we sit back and let it continue just because the bigots got to these men first?
No, they’ll be affected; a core part of their mind will still be destroyed and replaced by someone else’s program. No doubt the effects will be still obvious but long term psychological disorder of some sort is still likely inevitable.
Also, your argument sounds an awful lot like “rape is OK if they don’t fight back”.