A hypothetical question

[Vera_Ljuba]

Suppose that the technology advances to a point when people’s thoughts can be monitored. If someone is about to commit a violent act (like a rape, torture or murder), then a device can be activated, which will make the person to forget that intent, so the act will never be carried out. Non-violent thoughts would not be tempered with.

Would you implement that technology?

 

[STT]

Suppose that the technology advances to a point when people’s thoughts can be monitored. If someone is about to commit a violent act (like a rape, torture or murder), then a device can be activated, which will make the person to forget that intent, so the act will never be carried out. Non-violent thoughts would not be tempered with.

Would you implement that technology?

Yes, depending on person. There are people that committed a criminal act without conscious decisions. They are hold in the semiprison- semihospitals.

 

[ANV]

Yes, for the sake of victims. The criminal’s free will is not more important than the victim’s suffering.

 

[Crusaderbear]

My only problem is when some ‘important person in charge’ decides the next step is to start eliminating improper thinking - like voting for the ‘other’ party, or convincing people that the other party deserves to be wiped from the face of the earth…

God gave us free will, no man has a right to take it away! Not the best answer, but it’s all we have.

 

[Bradski]

In the way that you propose it, Vera? No. But if I may suggest something similar.

In 1966, Charles Whitman climber a clock tower in the University of Texas and shot and killed 15 people after earlier killing his wife and mother. He in turn was killed by a police officer.

His autopsy revealed a tumour on his brain and it was suggested that this was the cause of the personalty change that he went through causing the tragedy. He himself had asked in what was effectively a suicide note that an autopsy be performed to see if there was something physically wrong with him because he was distraught about what was hapoening to him.

I assume that if this tumour has been discovered and it was known to have an affect that would cause Whitman to become violent, nobody would argue against it being removed. Let’s assume that it would not have killed him, but just caused violent tendancies.

So in this case, we know that someone is very likely to commit a violent act and we could agree that a medical procedure would be a valid way of preventing that.

Now let’s say that we discover that some genes are associated with violent behaviour. This has actually happened: bbc.com/news/science-environment-29760212.

We’d be willing to allow a medical procedure to prevent someone developing violent tendancies. So would we be willing to allow another procedure to ‘turn off’ the genes that are associted with violence? People with a certain type of genetic make-up are 17 more likely to commit an act of violence (see linked article)

If you were having a child and the doctor said that tests indicated that your baby had these genes and was 17 times more likely to be violent than someone without these genes (i.e. The vast majority of the population) and the doctor went on to say that they could correct this without any other negative outcomes, what would you say?

 

[venite_adoremus]

Never, because who would decide? Let God be God. Not only do humans have free will, but we also have this notion called justice.

 

[GEddie]

Never, because who would decide? Let God be God. Not only do humans have free will, but we also have this notion called justice.

Isn’t “justice” – which comes from Latin ivstitia, lawfulness – roughly what those who make law say it is?

ICXC NIKA

 

[meltzerboy]

In the way that you propose it, Vera? No. But if I may suggest something similar.

In 1966, Charles Whitman climber a clock tower in the University of Texas and shot and killed 15 people after earlier killing his wife and mother. He in turn was killed by a police officer.

His autopsy revealed a tumour on his brain and it was suggested that this was the cause of the personalty change that he went through causing the tragedy. He himself had asked in what was effectively a suicide note that an autopsy be performed to see if there was something physically wrong with him because he was distraught about what was hapoening to him.

I assume that if this tumour has been discovered and it was known to have an affect that would cause Whitman to become violent, nobody would argue against it being removed. Let’s assume that it would not have killed him, but just caused violent tendancies.

So in this case, we know that someone is very likely to commit a violent act and we could agree that a medical procedure would be a valid way of preventing that.

Now let’s say that we discover that some genes are associated with violent behaviour. This has actually happened: bbc.com/news/science-environment-29760212.

We’d be willing to allow a medical procedure to prevent someone developing violent tendancies. So would we be willing to allow another procedure to ‘turn off’ the genes that are associted with violence? People with a certain type of genetic make-up are 17 more likely to commit an act of violence (see linked article)

If you were having a child and the doctor said that tests indicated that your baby had these genes and was 17 times more likely to be violent than someone without these genes (i.e. The vast majority of the population) and the doctor went on to say that they could correct this without any other negative outcomes, what would you say?

Great question, as is that of the OP. In this case, it wouldn’t exactly be interfering with free will, would it? Just the opposite, perhaps, in allowing the person to express free will. So I might go for it. However, that slippery slope regarding genetic testing, which may be very useful in certain instances, is beginning to rear its ugly head.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Suppose that the technology advances to a point when people’s thoughts can be monitored. If someone is about to commit a violent act (like a rape, torture or murder), then a device can be activated, which will make the person to forget that intent, so the act will never be carried out. Non-violent thoughts would not be tempered with.

Would you implement that technology?

I would protect free will in all cases. It is what makes us human.

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . However, that slippery slope regarding genetic testing, which may be very useful in certain instances, is beginning to rear its ugly head.

Were Dr. Jerome Lejeune still living in our world today, I believe he would agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

In the way that you propose it, Vera? No. But if I may suggest something similar.

In 1966, Charles Whitman climber a clock tower in the University of Texas and shot and killed 15 people after earlier killing his wife and mother. He in turn was killed by a police officer.

His autopsy revealed a tumour on his brain and it was suggested that this was the cause of the personalty change that he went through causing the tragedy. He himself had asked in what was effectively a suicide note that an autopsy be performed to see if there was something physically wrong with him because he was distraught about what was hapoening to him.

I assume that if this tumour has been discovered and it was known to have an affect that would cause Whitman to become violent, nobody would argue against it being removed. Let’s assume that it would not have killed him, but just caused violent tendancies.

So in this case, we know that someone is very likely to commit a violent act and we could agree that a medical procedure would be a valid way of preventing that.

Now let’s say that we discover that some genes are associated with violent behaviour. This has actually happened: bbc.com/news/science-environment-29760212.

We’d be willing to allow a medical procedure to prevent someone developing violent tendancies. So would we be willing to allow another procedure to ‘turn off’ the genes that are associted with violence? People with a certain type of genetic make-up are 17 more likely to commit an act of violence (see linked article)

If you were having a child and the doctor said that tests indicated that your baby had these genes and was 17 times more likely to be violent than someone without these genes (i.e. The vast majority of the population) and the doctor went on to say that they could correct this without any other negative outcomes, what would you say?

I am sorry, but that is completely different problem. If someone is physically ill, and that genetic deformity would make them prone to violence, and some medical procedure could cure that violent behavior, then obviously that would be the preferred course of action.

But I was not talking about a genetic disorder. Simple, old-fashioned, violent and bad people, who find pleasure in torturing others. Psychopaths and sociopaths. The Charles Manson types. Who knows? Maybe their behavior is also due to some genetic deformity, which we cannot detect, much less able to cure. And if that is the case, and the only possible protection is by “overriding” their freedom, then what?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I am sorry, but that is completely different problem. If someone is physically ill, and that genetic deformity would make them prone to violence, and some medical procedure could cure that violent behavior, then obviously that would be the preferred course of action.

But I was not talking about a genetic disorder. Simple, old-fashioned, violent and bad people, who find pleasure in torturing others. Psychopaths and sociopaths. The Charles Manson types. Who knows? Maybe their behavior is also due to some genetic deformity, which we cannot detect, much less able to cure. And if that is the case, and the only possible protection is by “overriding” their freedom, then what?

How about free speech? Okay with suppressing that?

 

[Bradski]

I am sorry, but that is completely different problem. If someone is physically ill, and that genetic deformity would make them prone to violence, and some medical procedure could cure that violent behavior, then obviously that would be the preferred course of action.

But I was not talking about a genetic disorder. Simple, old-fashioned, violent and bad people, who find pleasure in torturing others. Psychopaths and sociopaths. The Charles Manson types. Who knows? Maybe their behavior is also due to some genetic deformity, which we cannot detect, much less able to cure. And if that is the case, and the only possible protection is by “overriding” their freedom, then what?

It could be described as a different solution to a different problem, but I know why you are asking the question. I’ve suggested something that might be not so black and white.

Let’s say that we reach a point where future violent behaviour can definitely be determined by your genetic make-up. Just like we know if you have a propensity for breast cancer or diabetes. If there was a simle medical procedure that would remove that risk, then would any sane person reject the opportunit to have that procedure? Would any sane person suggest that it is God’s will if we develop breast cancer or diabetes so we must not interfer with the funtionng of our own bodies?

It’s would be akin to suggesting that we reject all medicine.

So imagine you want a child. And the doctor tells you that the combination of your genes and your wife’s genes will almost certainly result in an outcome that is far from desirable. But that there was a simple procedure to avoid that scenario. Would any oarent reject it?

So, if we have a gene for violence and we could screen that out in all future births, then is it conceivable that yould say: ‘No, it’s God’s will that my son will be violent. We must do nothing to prevent that’.

And if one could agree that something should be done, as I suggest any sane parent would do, then we know where that argument leads.

We prevent uneccessary violence and we don’t restrict free will.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It could be described as a different solution to a different problem, but I know why you are asking the question. I’ve suggested something that might be not so black and white.

The whole point was a black-and-white scenario. Different solutions to different problems could be discussed in different threads.

We prevent uneccessary violence and we don’t restrict free will.

Of course. That is the ideal solution.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

It could be described as a different solution to a different problem, but I know why you are asking the question. I’ve suggested something that might be not so black and white.

Let’s say that we reach a point where future violent behaviour can definitely be determined by your genetic make-up. Just like we know if you have a propensity for breast cancer or diabetes. If there was a simle medical procedure that would remove that risk, then would any sane person reject the opportunit to have that procedure? Would any sane person suggest that it is God’s will if we develop breast cancer or diabetes so we must not interfer with the funtionng of our own bodies?

It’s would be akin to suggesting that we reject all medicine.

So imagine you want a child. And the doctor tells you that the combination of your genes and your wife’s genes will almost certainly result in an outcome that is far from desirable. But that there was a simple procedure to avoid that scenario. Would any oarent reject it?

So, if we have a gene for violence and we could screen that out in all future births, then is it conceivable that yould say: ‘No, it’s God’s will that my son will be violent. We must do nothing to prevent that’.

And if one could agree that something should be done, as I suggest any sane parent would do, then we know where that argument leads.

We prevent uneccessary violence and we don’t restrict free will.

I don’t want the State or socialized medicine controlling my life. That sounds horrid. Soylent Green.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

How about free speech? Okay with suppressing that?

It is already a felony to cry “FIRE!” in a crowded theater.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I don’t want the State or socialized medicine controlling my life. That sounds horrid. Soylent Green.

I prefer the state to control the life of criminals.

 

[oyaji]

The criminal’s free will is not more important than the victim’s suffering.

Why?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I prefer the state to control the life of criminals.

You must put a lot of faith in our justice system. Many “criminals” are wrongly accused and put in prison for crimes thy didn’t do. Likewise a lot of “crimes” are highly debatable. Likewise some crimes are done in the heat of passion and do not reflect the true character of the person who did the crime. Likewise rich people can buy their way out of a sentence. Get real. If you think the State is full of wise, just people you are completely duped.

 

[GEddie]

Shouldn’t punishment reflect the severity of the crime itself rather than “the culprit’s character”, whatever one means by that?

Is a body less dead if killed in the heat of passion than if by a cold-blooded premeditator?

Is someone less impoverished if robbed by drug addicts than if bilked by a telephone scam?

IMINWHO, the world is choking on nuances, and needs badly to get back to balancing rights and wrongs.

ICXC NIKA