I’m talking about your personal choice in the matter. No compulsion involved.
No, I don’t. But it is still the best way to deal with criminals. God does not do anything.
If you need to ask, you would not understand the answer.
The hypothetical was simple. Thoughts which lead to violence are independent of politics. And the hypothetical system would only prevent the action, not the “will”.
It’s not simply a question as to free will, but as to the natural state of man and the state’s level of involvement. There is something repulsive to the idea of this thought-machine, even if the stringently white-washed hypothetical does away with the largest objections with its arbitrary rules, because those hypothetical rules would never translate to reality. It’s precisely when its translated reality that repulsion to the idea manefests itself.
Please concentrate on the problem as stated. There was not one word about the state. And thought experiments are not expected to translate into reality. There is no need to assume the existence of a state. The prevention of violence is the only assumption we make. Criticize the problem based upon what is explicitly given. Do not get into some slippery slope kind of analysis.
Not at all. I would just let nature take it’s course, let God do his will. I do not trust most of the medical system at all. Do you? Do you take pills to change your mental state?
It could work, and it is a frightening idea. Fascist actually.
Actually I think a lot of science fiction writers have explored the idea.
There’s nothing sensible I can add to that.
This “new technology” you’re talking about would treat everyone like a potential criminal. It would be immoral to use something like it on anyone with no prior history of violence.
You might be surprised. So…why would you say that a criminal’s free will is more important that the victim’s. I think you’re just trolling but I’ll wait.
Because criminality is defined by the state. Give the state this power, and in future years it will be used to crush political opposition; just as in the CCCP, critics of the state were declared insane and locked up or drugged.
Not at all. The dilemma does not talk about “criminals”, it does not mention the state. It deals with someone raising an axe or wielding a gun ABOUT to commit some violent action THEN and THERE. And it such a case it would simply apply a quick, LOCALIZED intervention to make the person to forget what he intended to do.
I said the exact opposite.
That would be mind control, its interesting to note there was PLENTY of experiments done in past decades that deal with this, who knows what they ever came up with (or what they are experimenting with right now)!