Personality Reprogramming And You

[Faen]

Jorick has stated he would give them the choice between execution and reprogramming. Therefore, it would not be against their will.

Still it would be against their will...human's typically value their own lives above all else. Given the choice between having my life torn apart by the reprogramming. Compared to having my life ended. I don't know about you....but continuing to live is a great choice. You are essentially giving them a choice. "The Red Pill, or The Blue Pill"

[Jorick]

It's true though. The power to reprogram people's minds is on a level so absurdly, mind numbingly abusable that I don't even want to touch it.

Solving the problem by hitting their level. Doesn't stop that point from getting through.

Anything has the potential to be abused, and yet we still use very abusable things nonetheless (guns, bombs, nuclear power, cars, etc). Potential for abuse should be weighed against potential for positive gains rather than just saying "fuck no, that can be abused, never touch it."

As for the sinking to their level thing, I have a question for you. Do you support the death penalty as a punishment for murderers? If so, how do you justify sinking to their level in that scenario but not this one? If not, why are you advocating death as an alternative in this thread rather than incarceration?

Because people > everything else to me. The individual is more important than their body, or what I think they should be. If the world was built up on what I think it should be, it would be a boring world where nothing changed. I may not have much faith in humanity, but I do believe in individuals. Call me a humanist if you like.

tl;dr: It's unethical to reprogram someone against their will because it's killing them mentally and turning them into what society believes is a better person. Whether that is true or not is beyond my judgement, or the judgement of most (if not all) others. If a person volunteers for it, I can agree with it, because that was their choice as an individual. However, let someone have the choice to die instead. If we have to go to that extreme, if there is no other option than "reprogram" or "die", then let them choose that.

The moment we start enforcing what a person can and cannot be via reprogramming is the day we lose something valuable; individual worth and choice.

I would agree that the individual is more important than their body, but I mean... Execution is permanently ending that individual's existence. Reprogramming would be altering them but allowing them to continue existing. Altered but continued existence of the individual is better than the destruction of the individual, no?

I also agree that they should be given a choice. However, as for the enforcing what a person can and cannot be, we already do that. It's called the law and law enforcement. We currently say it's not okay to be a murderer, rapist, child molester, etc. and so we punish those who are those unacceptable things. How is reprogramming to allow a continued but altered existence somehow a greater transgression of individual worth and choice than execution for those same infractions? Both permanently prevent recurrence of the behavior, but the reprogramming would allow the person a second chance of sorts wherein they would no longer be held down with the baggage of their mental illnesses that caused them to do horrible things. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that allowing continued life seems the more humane thing to do.

[Faen]

Oh yes its 100% ethical. And it will continue to be ethical when they decide they want to reprogram people who steal. And it will continue to be ethical when they decide that they want to reprogram people who are vocal in their opposition of the government. And it'll continue to be ethical when they decide to reprogram their soldiers for better loyalty. And it will continue to be ethical when they decide that they want to reprogram any non-*Insert Religion Here*, and it'll continue to be ethical when they decide to reprogram voters....

The ability to "reprogram" someone is an evil the likes of which Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and all folks like them or even some "respected" types like George W Bush would absolutely salivate over and decide that your rights as a human being can be whatever they want to program them to be.

This is again, why the whole situation is scary as hell.

[CommunistZed]

Oh yes its 100% ethical. And it will continue to be ethical when they decide they want to reprogram people who steal. And it will continue to be ethical when they decide that they want to reprogram people who are vocal in their opposition of the government. And it'll continue to be ethical when they decide to reprogram their soldiers for better loyalty. And it will continue to be ethical when they decide that they want to reprogram any non-*Insert Religion Here*, and it'll continue to be ethical when they decide to reprogram voters....

The ability to "reprogram" someone is an evil the likes of which Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and all folks like them or even some "respected" types like George W Bush would absolutely salivate over and decide that your rights as a human being can be whatever they want to program them to be.

Hey, now.
Don't get it twisted, I said it was ethical for the sentence to be reprogramming, and that a better alternative to it would be to lobotomize the people instead of reprogramming. So, in summary, what you're trying to say about the reprogramming is invalid, because I'm giving the people an ethical alternative to reprogramming, which is lobotomy rather than reprogramming or death.

[Kadaeux]

Hey, now.
Don't get it twisted, I said it was ethical for the sentence to be reprogramming, and that a better alternative to it would be to lobotomize the people instead of reprogramming. So, in summary, what you're trying to say about the reprogramming is invalid, because I'm giving the people an ethical alternative to reprogramming, which is lobotomy rather than reprogramming or death.

I'm not getting it twisted. I'm following the sequence of events on its logical and predetermined course as demonstrated throughout human history. Lobotomisation is no more humane, is less so you're basically making a zombie then, a zombie which is completely dependent on other individuals for feeding, cleaning or anything.

A Lobotomy is basically a living execution.

[Brovo]

Anything has the potential to be abused, and yet we still use very abusable things nonetheless (guns, bombs, nuclear power, cars, etc). Potential for abuse should be weighed against potential for positive gains rather than just saying "fuck no, that can be abused, never touch it."

As for the sinking to their level thing, I have a question for you. Do you support the death penalty as a punishment for murderers? If so, how do you justify sinking to their level in that scenario but not this one? If not, why are you advocating death as an alternative in this thread rather than incarceration?

The difference between bombs, guns, nuclear power, and cars is that all of those things do not change an individual. They are tools an individual uses to go about whatever goals they have. Be that driving to work, powering a city, and hunting, to going for a hit and run, obliterating a city from existence, and murder--it is still all that individual's agenda.

Reprogramming changes an individual's agenda to anything that the reprogrammer wants.

That's insane when you think about it. Especially if you put it in the hands of, say, government.

Hell, lets put aside conspiracy theory. Imagine a criminal organization, or a terrorist organization getting their hands on that technology? (And, inevitable, they WOULD get their hands on it.) Imagine human traffickers being able to make perfect slaves by erasing the person that once existed. Imagine a company sleuth-fully and stealth-fully programming their employees with switches that make them happy to work for less pay than they should be getting, and quelling complaints.

This is technology that can cause nightmares that Einstein could only dream of.

As for the death penalty, I support the death penalty. It's just that death would be the thing to alleviate via reprogramming, non? Ergo, I have to argue for death over reprogramming. Because to me, that is the lesser of two evils. A necessary evil.

I would agree that the individual is more important than their body, but I mean... Execution is permanently ending that individual's existence. Reprogramming would be altering them but allowing them to continue existing. Altered but continued existence of the individual is better than the destruction of the individual, no?

Altered existence, however, is not the same as the continued existence of the original individual. Therefore: Did you kill the individual and replace it with a convenient copy that is within your moral guidelines, or did you just "tweak" them? It's a grey area here. A massive, massive grey area.

I also agree that they should be given a choice. However, as for the enforcing what a person can and cannot be, we already do that. It's called the law and law enforcement. We currently say it's not okay to be a murderer, rapist, child molester, etc. and so we punish those who are those unacceptable things. How is reprogramming to allow a continued but altered existence somehow a greater transgression of individual worth and choice than execution for those same infractions? Both permanently prevent recurrence of the behavior, but the reprogramming would allow the person a second chance of sorts wherein they would no longer be held down with the baggage of their mental illnesses that caused them to do horrible things. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that allowing continued life seems the more humane thing to do.

#1: (Bolded) Then regardless of our philosophical differences, we agree that it's a choice, which makes this more an argument of philosophy than an argument of applicability.

#2: A second chance by your standards, but the original person who would have received that chance is gone and replaced with a new individual. Therefore, not really a second chance. We're just creating a new person. Which falls under the perview of nature, God, or whatever you believe.

In an idealistic world, this would be a great technology.

The world, however, is not idealistic. It's realistic.

And in a realistic technology, it would have good moments where people would be better off, and nightmare scenarios where evil people would use it to do evil things.

Just another footnote in human history.

[Jorick]

EDIT

@Jorick: Also, in your response to Faen, you're more likely thinking of a sociopath, not a psychopath. A sociopath would be more likely to go out and rape and murder specific targets. A psychopath is someone who might fall into the delusion of being a fictional killer, more likely to be a random mass murderer.

Speaking as a psychopath, myself. (Non-dangerous, though.)

Missed this in my previous quoting. Thanks for the correction, I keep mistakenly using the popular media terminology over the legitimate psychological terms.

Essentially what I was trying to say. Is that you are forcing a change upon the person against their will. You are altering who they are, what identifies them. A person's personality is essential to them. To me this is like saying "Oh, this dog has one leg. Let's tear off the other one he won't miss it"

As far as what to do with the hypothetical child rapist/murderer. That depends on what made the person commit the crime, it's all about motive. What choices brought that person to this ledge.

Let's say this hypothetical rapist/murderer does what he does because he was horribly abused as a child and thus developed a suite of mental disorders that cause him to disregard the well-being of others and wish to inflict harm upon them. This is the case for most serial killers and the like, mind you, that they were abused as a child and thus develop such problems. The motive is pleasure, personal gratification, driven in large part by their disorders that cause them to seek such things by harming others.

What then is the ethical thing to do if the technology exists to remove those memories and mental scars, such as this reprogramming would do? Would it be more ethical to kill them, lock them up forever, or reprogram their minds such that they no longer have these problems?

Oh yes its 100% ethical. And it will continue to be ethical when they decide they want to reprogram people who steal. And it will continue to be ethical when they decide that they want to reprogram people who are vocal in their opposition of the government. And it'll continue to be ethical when they decide to reprogram their soldiers for better loyalty. And it will continue to be ethical when they decide that they want to reprogram any non-*Insert Religion Here*, and it'll continue to be ethical when they decide to reprogram voters....

The ability to "reprogram" someone is an evil the likes of which Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and all folks like them or even some "respected" types like George W Bush would absolutely salivate over and decide that your rights as a human being can be whatever they want to program them to be.

The slippery slope argument is a horrid logical fallacy. Guessing from your jab against Dubya, you tend toward some liberal ideas. Consider the fact that slippery slope arguments are the kinds of things people use against abortion, gay marriage, and so forth. They're awful and bad and nobody who wants to be seen as credible should use them.

Still it would be against their will...human's typically value their own lives above all else. Given the choice between having my life torn apart by the reprogramming. Compared to having my life ended. I don't know about you....but continuing to live is a great choice. You are essentially giving them a choice. "The Red Pill, or The Blue Pill"

Yeah, sorry, they lost their right to continue on as they were when they did whatever crimes brought them to this place. They're not allowed to just stroll on out and continue hurting people. Sure, it's not a pure choice made without being pressured toward making it, but that's too damned bad. Currently they would just get death as their only option (in some areas), giving them the reprogramming choice is a kindness for those who would like to take it.

[Kadaeux]

The slippery slope argument is a horrid logical fallacy. Guessing from your jab against Dubya, you tend toward some liberal ideas. Consider the fact that slippery slope arguments are the kinds of things people use against abortion, gay marriage, and so forth. They're awful and bad and nobody who wants to be seen as credible should use them.

Liberal ideas? Gods no. Put me in charge of the world and pretty much the entire global prison population would be marched into death camps, you'd end up with a governmental structure looking like something from Warhammer 40'000. I am exactly the sort of person who would abuse technology like this to see my goals come to being. I know for a fact I would make an absolutely terrible nightmarish ruler who'd probably be compared with favourably with Hitler, Stalin and Vlad the Impaler.

However I have not used a "Slippery Slope" argument. I have stated fact.

Horrifying example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb

[Christiefries]

A second chance by your standards, but the original person who would have received that chance is gone and replaced with a new individual. Therefore, not really a second chance. We're just creating a new person. Which falls under the perview of nature, God, or whatever you believe.

I don't see how it would make them an entirely new individual. I'm still the same person I was a decade ago, only I have a few missing memories. So what?

[Jorick]

The difference between bombs, guns, nuclear power, and cars is that all of those things do not change an individual. They are tools an individual uses to go about whatever goals they have. Be that driving to work, powering a city, and hunting, to going for a hit and run, obliterating a city from existence, and murder--it is still all that individual's agenda.

Reprogramming changes an individual's agenda to anything that the reprogrammer wants.

That's insane when you think about it. Especially if you put it in the hands of, say, government.

Hell, lets put aside conspiracy theory. Imagine a criminal organization, or a terrorist organization getting their hands on that technology? (And, inevitable, they WOULD get their hands on it.) Imagine human traffickers being able to make perfect slaves by erasing the person that once existed. Imagine a company sleuth-fully and stealth-fully programming their employees with switches that make them happy to work for less pay than they should be getting, and quelling complaints.

This is technology that can cause nightmares that Einstein could only dream of.

As for the death penalty, I support the death penalty. It's just that death would be the thing to alleviate via reprogramming, non? Ergo, I have to argue for death over reprogramming. Because to me, that is the lesser of two evils. A necessary evil.

Well there we go, looks like we simply have a fundamental difference in our values. I say the hypothetical negatives would be outweighed by the hypothetical positives and that life, even with alterations to one's mind, is preferable to death. You seem to think otherwise so we're not going to come to any agreement here, which is fine.

Altered existence, however, is not the same as the continued existence of the original individual. Therefore: Did you kill the individual and replace it with a convenient copy that is within your moral guidelines, or did you just "tweak" them? It's a grey area here. A massive, massive grey area.

By that same argument, someone who hits their head really hard and has some brain damage that changes how they behave is no longer the same individual. An individual is not a static snapshot of beliefs and behaviors, an individual is an ever-changing entity, so I call shenanigans on this idea. Just because they had some trauma and are now slightly different doesn't mean they're an entirely different person. I would furthermore argue that the natural alteration is fundamentally no different than the artificial alteration in that both change the individual to act in different ways. I would say that they are indeed the same individual, because individuals change over time. The exact nature of the changes are irrelevant.

#1: (Bolded) Then regardless of our philosophical differences, we agree that it's a choice, which makes this more an argument of philosophy than an argument of applicability.

#2: A second chance by your standards, but the original person who would have received that chance is gone and replaced with a new individual. Therefore, not really a second chance. We're just creating a new person. Which falls under the perview of nature, God, or whatever you believe.

In an idealistic world, this would be a great technology.

The world, however, is not idealistic. It's realistic.

And in a realistic technology, it would have good moments where people would be better off, and nightmare scenarios where evil people would use it to do evil things.

Just another footnote in human history.

Definitely an argument of philosophy, yes. This sort of thing being used without giving people the alternative choice of death would be, to put it simply, bullshit.

Refer to my above section where I call shenanigans on it being a new individual. Alterations happen naturally. Hell, we already do unnatural alterations (brain surgery that happens to tweak someone, applied psychology changing a person) and don't deem that person a wholly new individual. I don't see why they should be considered one in this hypothetical situation either.

Same goes for any technology. Such is the price of advancement. Humanity is rather flawed in that someone, somewhere will always think of a way to use new advances to their benefit or to the detriment of others. Sure, it sucks, but I stand by my position that the potential abuses do not outweigh the potential benefits. Either way, it would indeed just be another step along the road of human history rather than some huge ordeal.

- - - Updated - - -

Liberal ideas? Gods no. Put me in charge of the world and pretty much the entire global prison population would be marched into death camps, you'd end up with a governmental structure looking like something from Warhammer 40'000. I am exactly the sort of person who would abuse technology like this to see my goals come to being. I know for a fact I would make an absolutely terrible nightmarish ruler who'd probably be compared with favourably with Hitler, Stalin and Vlad the Impaler.

However I have not used a "Slippery Slope" argument. I have stated fact.

Horrifying example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb

Well, my apologies for mistaking your nature then. I misinterpreted the jab at Dubya I suppose.

But you did indeed use a slippery slope argument. Thing A inevitably leads to worse thing B, thing B inevitably leads to worse thing C, etc. That is the very definition of a slippery slope argument.