Let's go into a hypothetical future

[Spock]

Let’s suppose that technology advances to the point where we can build a network of sensors, which can detect aggression in humans, and is able to modify the thought process, so the aggressive intent will be erased. It cannot interfere with anything else, only to make sure that no aggressive acts (rape, murder, war, robbery, etc…) can be carried out. Should this network be implemented?

 

[WillieWonka]

Let’s suppose that technology advances to the point where we can build a network of sensors, which can detect aggression in humans, and is able to modify the thought process, so the aggressive intent will be erased. It cannot interfere with anything else, only to make sure that no aggressive acts (rape, murder, war, robbery, etc…) can be carried out. Should this network be implemented?

I think we are already doing something very similar with psychiatric drugs.

 

[HickmanJosh]

Let’s suppose that technology advances to the point where we can build a network of sensors, which can detect aggression in humans, and is able to modify the thought process, so the aggressive intent will be erased. It cannot interfere with anything else, only to make sure that no aggressive acts (rape, murder, war, robbery, etc…) can be carried out. Should this network be implemented?

Where does responsibility and thought discipline come in?

Self control?

 

[jen_fla]

have you seen the firefly series and movie? this reminds me of the reavers and what the futuristic governing body tried to achieve on the planet miranda.

at any rate, i voted no. sorry i don’t have time to get into the why’s of my answer as i must get back to work.

check out the firefly series and movie serenity, you might really like it. i did except for the part where they glorified prostitution. that whole bit made me irate.

peace,
jen

 

[Xuan]

Let’s suppose that technology advances to the point where we can build a network of sensors, which can detect aggression in humans, and is able to modify the thought process, so the aggressive intent will be erased. It cannot interfere with anything else, only to make sure that no aggressive acts (rape, murder, war, robbery, etc…) can be carried out. Should this network be implemented?

No. Sometimes aggression can play a very constructive role. For example, it would take a good bit of aggression to jump into a freezing river to save someone from drowning. Another example might be the aggression required to protect loved ones by staving off an enraged wild animal.

 

[Drawmack]

Let’s suppose that technology advances to the point where we can build a network of sensors, which can detect aggression in humans, and is able to modify the thought process, so the aggressive intent will be erased. It cannot interfere with anything else, only to make sure that no aggressive acts (rape, murder, war, robbery, etc…) can be carried out. Should this network be implemented?

Read Orson Scott Card’s Homecoming Series – both parts.

 

[Spock]

You guys are incredible! Can’t you just **ONCE **answer a question as posted, without changing it into something else?

The hypothetical setup is presented as is. It cannot be abused, it is perfect. It can only prevent the actions as I said, rapes, murders, tortures, robberies, wars… It cannot be abused by some evil government.

I hope no one will now say that such a system is impossible. Do not waste my time with such nonsense. Either answer as is or don’t answer at all.

Secondary question: if you still say that such a system should not be implemented, then would you eliminate the current system, which tries - somewhat successfully - to prevent such action - for example by incarcerating the criminals?

 

[HarmonyN20]

No, I would not change the way it is now. Even if a person is incarcerated and loses their ‘freedom’, they still have ‘free will’ to make their own choices in their particular environment. No matter the nature of the person, I believe that free will is an intrinsic part of the nature of humans. What they chose to do with that is another story. If you take away free will, to me, it smacks of

1. Playing God
2. all the horrors of a ‘Stepford’ type society

 

[HelenaMT]

You guys are incredible! Can’t you just **ONCE **answer a question as posted, without changing it into something else?

The hypothetical setup is presented as is. It cannot be abused, it is perfect. It can only prevent the actions as I said, rapes, murders, tortures, robberies, wars… It cannot be abused by some evil government.

I hope no one will now say that such a system is impossible. Do not waste my time with such nonsense. Either answer as is or don’t answer at all.

Secondary question: if you still say that such a system should not be implemented, then would you eliminate the current system, which tries - somewhat successfully - to prevent such action - for example by incarcerating the criminals?

Your OP hadn’t clarified that it was a perfect system beyond any possibility of abuse. It also made it sound like it was a blanket ban on aggression. Maybe that’s where people got it wrong. Or maybe they just think you’re trying to bait them into a “then why wouldn’t an all knowing God have made us that way in the first place” discussion.

Anyway, I would be all for preventing through artificial means the will to rape, to kill innocents, or to act on sadistic desires. Apart from those, I’d say leave free will alone.

 

[Spock]

Your OP hadn’t clarified that it was a perfect system beyond any possibility of abuse. It also made it sound like it was a blanket ban on aggression. Maybe that’s where people got it wrong. Or maybe they just think you’re trying to bait them into a “then why wouldn’t an all knowing God have made us that way in the first place” discussion.

It was obvious. I even gave examples on the acts to be prevented.

Anyway, I would be all for preventing through artificial means the will to rape, to kill innocents, or to act on sadistic desires. Apart from those, I’d say leave free will alone.

At last a rational response!

So, why does not God do that? Hint: there is a concept called “thought crime”, which is endorsed by Jesus - way before it appeared in the novel 1984. (“Whoever looks at a woman with lust, has already committed adultery in his heart” - if my memory serves me well.) So God could just punish the intent, without allowing it to come to reality. Perfect solution! Free is is allowed, evil is punished, but no one actually needs to suffer… oops! I keep forgetting that “suffering is beautiful”. How stupid of me.

 

[TheQuestioner]

It was obvious. I even gave examples on the acts to be prevented.

At last a rational response!

So, why does not God do that? Hint: there is a concept called “thought crime”, which is endorsed by Jesus - way before it appeared in the novel 1984. (“Whoever looks at a woman with lust, has already committed adultery in his heart” - if my memory serves me well.) So God could just punish the intent, without allowing it to come to reality. Perfect solution! Free is is allowed, evil is punished, but no one actually needs to suffer… oops! I keep forgetting that “suffering is beautiful”. How stupid of me.

Hmmmm…you see what you just did there?

Or maybe they just think you’re trying to bait them into a “then why wouldn’t an all knowing God have made us that way in the first place” discussion.

 

[phoage]

You guys are incredible! Can’t you just **ONCE **answer a question as posted, without changing it into something else?

The hypothetical setup is presented as is. It cannot be abused, it is perfect. It can only prevent the actions as I said, rapes, murders, tortures, robberies, wars… It cannot be abused by some evil government.

I hope no one will now say that such a system is impossible. Do not waste my time with such nonsense. Either answer as is or don’t answer at all.

Secondary question: if you still say that such a system should not be implemented, then would you eliminate the current system, which tries - somewhat successfully - to prevent such action - for example by incarcerating the criminals?

I vote NO!

As an example of a case which is not specifically mentioned in the OP and is not an abuse for the government:

A person buys a car and at a later date is unable to make payments. The bank hires a Repo Man to collect the car. This job requires agression. The person needs the car to get to his jog that keeps body and soul togeather but does not pay enough to provide for all his bills. so he resists repossesion.

And this is hardly a hypothetical case in today’s economy.

This is a world of fallable humans and there is no system that we develope that some other human cannot work around short of Deus Ex Machina.

Patrick

 

[Drawmack]

I vote NO!

As an example of a case which is not specifically mentioned in the OP and is not an abuse for the government:

A person buys a car and at a later date is unable to make payments. The bank hires a Repo Man to collect the car. This job requires agression. The person needs the car to get to his jog that keeps body and soul togeather but does not pay enough to provide for all his bills. so he resists repossesion.

And this is hardly a hypothetical case in today’s economy.

This is a world of fallable humans and there is no system that we develope that some other human cannot work around short of Deus Ex Machina.

Patrick

Actually, I would say under the original posters scenario that your scenario is impossible. Not paying for the car would be stealing it, that would be a robbery, the own of the car would be incapable of keeping the car and not paying for it. We wouldn’t even need repo men any more people would turn their own cars in when they couldn’t pay for them.

 

[Spock]

Actually, I would say under the original posters scenario that your scenario is impossible. Not paying for the car would be stealing it, that would be a robbery, the own of the car would be incapable of keeping the car and not paying for it. We wouldn’t even need repo men any more people would turn their own cars in when they couldn’t pay for them.

Let’s analyze this scenario. The person in question could have bought the car in good faith, with the intent to pay for it. Then he may have fallen on hard times, and unable to carry out his obligation. To attempt to keep the car is not an inherently violent action - though it would be illegal - while the repossession might turn violent.

From the top of my head I don’t see a good solution, so I will think about it. Though the financial loss of the lender, while undesirable - cannot be compared to the prevention of murders, tortures and rapes.

I am simply astonished that you guys prefer the existence of all the horrors compared to the minor loss of freedom. What on Earth made you so bloodthirsty and irrational? Where is your compassion for the would-be victims? Why side with the criminals? Would your attitude be the same if the would-be victim happened to be your loved one? Would you stand to the side and allow your daughter to be raped, tortured and killed - out of misguided respect for the “freedom” of the criminal? Where is the freedom of the victim? Or are you just a bunch of hypocrites, who can “endure” someone else’s suffering - and call it “beautiful”? Are you guys sick?

 

[JoeJPurnell]

Philosophically speaking, no. The ends do not justify the means. It would be an assault on the mind to prevent an assault on the body. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

[Spock]

Philosophically speaking, no. The ends do not justify the means. It would be an assault on the mind to prevent an assault on the body. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

A thoughtful reply, but it does not dig deep enough. I agree that the end (in and by itself) does not justify the means - however, the means and end scrutinized together, may or may not form a justifyable sequence.

In this case you have to show that taking away the freedom of the would-be criminals is somehow inferior to the alternative. This is what has been missing from all the replies. They simply announced - ex-catherda - that taking away a little freedom is more “horrible” than the suffering of the would-be victims. Of course no sane person argues that we should open all the prisons, and allow the criminals go on a rampage. Yet this is the logical corollary of all the posts in this (and other) threads.

 

[kesa82]

I have long thought that there is aggression in sex between two consenting adults.
Many will disagree.
The point is, how one defines what is aggression is subject to debate.
So it will come to a vote. Presupposing that those who endorse such a plan won the vote, they would then be obliged to use what is unquestionably aggression against those who refuse to comply.
It will begin with aggression, and from the very beginning there will be exceptions to the rule.

 

[Dranu]

Spock:

It was obvious. I even gave examples on the acts to be prevented.

It was not obvious, ostensive definitions do not cover formal definitions, and although aggressive acts include rape, murder, etc. they also cover righteous fury that may arise in oneself against evil thoughts or imperfections of all kinds.

However, with your latter clarification it becomes a lot more of a difficult question . A life on earth without those evils is certainly desirable, but it also eliminates the possibility for certain virtues of temperance etc. I think the good it destroys is likely worse than the good it creates. It is better that people actually can work to be good rather than to just appear good (by your system). By removing temptations to do a great many evils, I am not sure if many can ever really come to uprightness of will. The question of whether they are good or not is if they would will what is right no matter the temptation, not whether their external actions appear good or not.

Still, we ought to want to remove temptations to do bad, but we must make sure that these removal of temptations do not create new (and perhaps worse) temptations. ** Two off the top of my head would be slothfulness to spiritual/will development and temptation to be a hedonist by having less examples of temporal consequences of such an evil philosophy.**

So I think it would be more dangerous to remove it than not (I am unsure), but this is more of a utilitarian calculation than a real a priori (means in themselves) moral question. Moral development is of infinite more importance than the amount of pain and suffering in the world (which we ought to try and curb if we are loving but not to the extent of it destroying a greater good, which is not loving at all).

–All of this does not mean removing the God given temporal authority from the government to hunt down and punish those who do such wrongs (after they are done).

Oh, and Spock, nice thought experiment btw.
Have a good one.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

have you seen the firefly series and movie? this reminds me of the reavers and what the futuristic governing body tried to achieve on the planet miranda.

at any rate, i voted no. sorry i don’t have time to get into the why’s of my answer as i must get back to work.

check out the firefly series and movie serenity, you might really like it. i did except for the part where they glorified prostitution. that whole bit made me irate.

peace,
jen

Firefly reference FTW!!!

I personally think this is a terrible idea. Asolute power corrupts absolutely. We need to, as a society, address the issues that drives people to commit these crimes. Something like this would treat the symptoms of a deeper illness, rather than cure the disease. This is why we, as followers of Christ, need to work harder to introduce the only cure: The love of God.

Secondly, we are talking about freaking MIND CONTROL here people. And, who decides what constitutes aggressive behaviour? Say our society continues in its pro-death ways. What happens when people, angry about abortion, protest outside a clinic? Would these pro-choice governors consider this aggression and shut them down? What about when spouses are fighting, and its a touchy issue that needs to be fought out. Are they shut down and never allowed to discuss it? We want to talk about a “perfect system” as the OP describes, but if there is one thing we have learned through history, there is NO SUCH THING as a perfect system. This is why communism fails. Communism is the ideal system, and would work to be perfect, were there perfect leaders for it.

 

[Detales]

Spock, however much you protest about “chainging (the thread) into something else,” it remains that such hypothetical scenarios interpreted by a yes/no vote are completely off of any useful track. Yes/no, either/or, black/white, on/off, all those as such deny the dynamics of degrees and kinds, continuums, shades, nuances, axila dynamics, etc., etc., lumping highly complex individual cases into a mechanical, binary, toggle switch selection process. As you know, not even photons fired at slot/s behave this way. How could a human condition, or a moral judgement be so simplified? If you are trying to abstaract a question, there must be a better way to do it.

In any case, the same conditions apply now as in your hypothetical case, and we already have such a network. It si called mind, ant the training thereof to be sensetive to the intents and qualities of others. Your hypothetical system would still be set up, operated, maintained and adjusted by the same faculties present now as attributes of our form’s navigation system. Quite simply, we are untrained and irresponsible in our encounters with the mind sets of otheres. Our legal systems are all after the fact, and are busy because in part the people who raised, knew, and interacted with the perps are themselves deficient.

I don’t think that such a group is capable of designing such a system, hypothetical or nto, and that the way you have set it up has no value of abstracting anything useful other than as a criticism of your setup. So what is it that you really want to know? Can you yourself ask seven degrees or kinds of question about the question you are asking? Where does that take you?