Personality Reprogramming And You

[Ommanipadmehum]

Let's say we're in the future, and technology has advanced. How far ahead from the present is anyone's guess.

There's a case where someone is proven to have committed many violent crimes. Psychological analysis of the defendant reveals that they're a victim of a mental disorder that predisposes them to perform such crimes. They can't be treated using "conventional" methods, so the judge sentences them to be psychologically reprogrammed. This involves the physical structure of their brain being altered, and results in the editing and/or removal of any current memories, thought processes, etc. that would encourage them to commit violent crimes again.

Do you believe that this sentencing was ethical?

Please explain your answer, and feel free to venture into sub-topics.

[DearJayne]

"Ethical" Is a tricky term. I believe that it was probably the most sensible and humane of the options given. The justice system as we know it now is supposed to be "rehabilitating" criminals in jails, not that they make much of an effort, so I believe that this form of rehabilitation can be useful and safe. It's also dependent on how much of the person's core structure that you change. If you only remove the "bad" parts, but leave who they are as a human being, then yes. But if you're taking who they are and COMPLETELY changing it, then I don't think that it should be allowed.

[Christiefries]

I selected Yes and Other.

So long as they are not changing who he is as a person, keeping his personality in tact and whatnot, then I think it is still ethical. If they just remove the bad memories, such as years of domestic violence for example, or being tortured while being caught during a war and being a prisoner... That would just give them a second chance at life. It would just be another form of rehabilitation. Brain surgery.

I don't know how successful such a thing would be, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to try it out. If the end results seem to be the people discovering there are gaps in their memories, then they resort to violence to figure out what happened... That would be a problem. But I'll just be optimistic and assume that everyone would be accepting of the gaps with proof that they did terrible things while those gaps were once filled.

[Brovo]

Speaking as someone who -is- mentally unstable, no, I would not appreciate this. I would prefer someone just execute me if I ever went that far off the boat.

As for those that would argue that I waived those rights via committing those violent, heinous crimes in the first place? Well, if you sink to -my- level and destroy me, brainwash me, etc, than you're no better than I am. I would "win" proverbially by forcing you to become a monster like me in order to defeat me.

Plus, on top of this, no matter how good technology gets, people will still make mistakes or even intentionally fib reports created by machines. What if we sentence an innocent man to be reprogrammed? Could you imagine or live with the horror of not only destroying a person's loved one, but to then tell them "we're sorry that your loved one is a zombie." Plus, the moment we justify this, we can start justifying it for more and more extreme things.

This would go to ugly places, very quickly, and would be too morally questionable to ever put into practice without doubts lingering behind about it. This is, of course, assuming that the process is 100% perfect and NEVER backfires, too.

EDIT

@Christiefries: You believe in the immortal soul, yet you also believe in reprogramming people whom don't "fit"? Isn't that a little... Odd? Contradictory, even?

[Christiefries]

Speaking as someone who -is- mentally unstable, no, I would not appreciate this. I would prefer someone just execute me if I ever went that far off the boat.

As for those that would argue that I waived those rights via committing those violent, heinous crimes in the first place? Well, if you sink to -my- level and destroy me, brainwash me, etc, than you're no better than I am. I would "win" proverbially by forcing you to become a monster like me in order to defeat me.

Plus, on top of this, no matter how good technology gets, people will still make mistakes or even intentionally fib reports created by machines. What if we sentence an innocent man to be reprogrammed? Could you imagine or live with the horror of not only destroying a person's loved one, but to then tell them "we're sorry that your loved one is a zombie." Plus, the moment we justify this, we can start justifying it for more and more extreme things.

This would go to ugly places, very quickly, and would be too morally questionable to ever put into practice without doubts lingering behind about it. This is, of course, assuming that the process is 100% perfect and NEVER backfires, too.

EDIT

@Christiefries: You believe in the immortal soul, yet you also believe in reprogramming people whom don't "fit"? Isn't that a little... Odd? Contradictory, even?

My answer was under the assumption that the reprogramming would work out nicely and that there was solid evidence that dictated the person absolutely did it. The reprogramming itself should have minimal input into the person so they can stay essentially the same person as they were before. It is no different than going through meditation to cleanse the mind, seeking therapy, having modern brain surgery, or even experiencing a brain injury, only this one would be self-inflicted and more concentrated on specific parts. As a person who has suffered from a mild amnesia, I am happy that most traumatic events are gone from my mind. I have no doubt I would be a different person, a person I do not want to be, if those memories were as vivid as they normally would be. I would be an even happier person if I had some other memories wiped as well, but since I am not a threat to society, it is no big deal at the moment.

This person is a threat to society however, and wiping those memories would make them happier and the community safer. Killing them without offering them a second chance at life is understandable, but sad. To answer your question towards me, this murderer has a soul. A robot does not. God says to love, forgive, and help one another if you are capable of it. I would love, forgive, and help this murderer if I could. A robot is nothing but a machine and does not experience emotion.

[mdk]

I don't know that it's really possible to answer this question from our current perspective. The ability to reprogram a person's brain and personality, etc., implies a level of understanding about how people work that we simply don't have right now. For instance, imagine you were the first person to ever receive a mastectomy in treatment of breast cancer -- surely that's a monstrous, horrible thing to do to anybody; but what we know now is that there is a real and malignant defect at work in the person's body, actively trying to kill her, and she needs that treatment.

[Jorick]

This is 100% ethically sound. It's basically a forced rehabilitation with assured success. What is the difference between directly fiddling with someone's brain and forced sessions with a therapist? There is no substantive difference other than the method. The end goal is the same: completely alter the way this person thinks such that they no longer become a threat to anyone. Personality changes are bound to occur with successful therapy, so personality changes coming from the direct alteration of the brain isn't some horrible breach of ethics. Memory loss isn't necessarily a bad thing because they would, hypothetically, be removing memories that cause you to be harmful to yourself or others. It's like removing a part of the body to prevent disease from spreading and doing more damage; amputation for the good of the person is not unethical, memory and personality alteration for the good of the person is not unethical.

However, I would also prefer to allow the person an option: either undergo this treatment or you can choose to be executed. Some people would prefer death to getting their brain tweaked for whatever reason. I say sure, they're well within their rights to choose death if they wish it. Someone who is a clear threat to society should not be allowed to go back out there in the world and harm other people. Whether they're treated to fix their issues or killed doesn't matter, so long as they are no longer a danger to others. Being incarcerated is of course another option, but I'm of the opinion that it's kind of stupid to just throw someone in a cell for the rest of their life rather than actually ending the problem one way or another.

So yes, I'd say the ruling is ethical, but that they should be given an alternative option (death) if their case is so severe that it warrants a permanent solution.

[Brovo]

My answer was under the assumption that the reprogramming would work out nicely and that there was solid evidence that dictated the person absolutely did it. The reprogramming itself should have minimal input into the person so they can stay essentially the same person as they were before. It is no different than going through meditation to cleanse the mind, seeking therapy, having modern brain surgery, or even experiencing a brain injury, only this one would be self-inflicted and more concentrated on specific parts. As a person who has suffered from a mild amnesia, I am happy that most traumatic events are gone from my mind. I have no doubt I would be a different person, a person I do not want to be, if those memories were as vivid as they normally would be. I would be an even happier person if I had some other memories wiped as well, but since I am not a threat to society, it is no big deal at the moment.

This person is a threat to society however, and wiping those memories would make them happier and the community safer. Killing them without offering them a second chance at life is understandable, but sad. To answer your question towards me, this murderer has a soul. A robot does not. God says to love, forgive, and help one another if you are capable of it. I would love, forgive, and help this murderer if I could. A robot is nothing but a machine and does not experience emotion.

Would respond with further detail about the robot in question, but that's for a different day. Plus we have the fundamental difference of only one of us believing in souls.

Still, you answered my question fairly. So thanks.

If the reprogramming was minimal and voluntary I would agree to it, for the safety of the community. However, an involuntary "reprogramming" is completely unethical, more so than simply killing the person in question.

Again, lots of variables, very hard to answer with absolute certainty. It'd require an individual case to judge appropriately. What if said person lived for conflict and violence? Say, a boxer? Wouldn't that kill a fundamental part of who he is, to remove the violent thoughts from his mind? Plus, to what degree do we do so? What would be considered normal, or acceptable? Would "normal" and "acceptable" get along or not? Then you have the ethical dilemma of having to try and protect the reprogrammed person from those whom would not forgive him or her for what he or she did.

It's a lot to think about.

Ergo, why my initial, gut answer is "no." Because there is no way in hell I could make that judgement call for EVERYONE with violent inklings. That would be playing God, which leads to bad things, religious or not.

[Christiefries]

Would respond with further detail about the robot in question, but that's for a different day. Plus we have the fundamental difference of only one of us believing in souls.

Still, you answered my question fairly. So thanks.

If the reprogramming was minimal and voluntary I would agree to it, for the safety of the community. However, an involuntary "reprogramming" is completely unethical, more so than simply killing the person in question.

Again, lots of variables, very hard to answer with absolute certainty. It'd require an individual case to judge appropriately. What if said person lived for conflict and violence? Say, a boxer? Wouldn't that kill a fundamental part of who he is, to remove the violent thoughts from his mind? Plus, to what degree do we do so? What would be considered normal, or acceptable? Would "normal" and "acceptable" get along or not? Then you have the ethical dilemma of having to try and protect the reprogrammed person from those whom would not forgive him or her for what he or she did.

It's a lot to think about.

Ergo, why my initial, gut answer is "no." Because there is no way in hell I could make that judgement call for EVERYONE with violent inklings. That would be playing God, which leads to bad things, religious or not.

You're welcome.

I agree, it depends on the situation. Too many variables. As Jorick stated, I can agree that they can be given the choice between death and reprogramming. As for the boxing thing... Perhaps they strived on the violence because of the same underlying cause that forced them to murder others. They can easily find something else to do, people have more than one interest in life, so they will be happy in the end.

And I suppose the ex-murderer could move to another part of the world far away from those who might not forgive them. Keep it on the DL.

[Faen]

I don't view this to be an ethical sentence. Simply because it is *assuming this* guaranteed success. Doesn't make it an ethical choice you are essentially forcing someone to be someone they are not. You're molding them to be that which you desire. You aren't letting them be who they are. Regardless if they are a murderer or a Sociopath who tortures little children for fun. That is who they are, people aren't the sum of their actions. People are the sum of their choices.

Let's say for instance that today I walk outside, start a violent revolution. Hundred of thousands of people are killed, however the ultimate outcome is that the world becomes a better place. Violent crimes drop to about 25%, Rape drops to about %14, and a cure for almost all of the allegedly incurable diseases is discovered. However, the cost of this was the hundreds of thousands lives that were destroyed. Since I caused this, by this thinking. Then I am a murderer, who killed hundreds of thousands of people by starting the revolution.

So no, I do not think that Personality Reprogramming is an ethical decision. A person who is mentally unstable...cannot be held accountable for their choices. Especially those who suffer from Mania, Sociopathic tendencies, and other such forms of mental disorders.