4
4Horsemen
Guest
ok
- Status
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
I voted yes.
First of all, restricting people’s behaviour with a device in the brain does not stop them from having free will. Their soul could still will to do evil, but they wouldn’t be able to carry the action out. (At least the way I understand the soul and the brain to interact). So, this device in the brain is just a more hi-tech version of all the other ways we restrain criminals - handcuffs, jails, etc.
So that leads to the question of why God would allow free will, if even we mere humans see it would be better to limit free will in certain situations. Firstly, there’s the distinction I mentioned in the first paragraph about allowing free will vs. restraining someone. Second, its a very good question, its called “the problem of evil” and has lots of answers, but still remains a bit mysterious because we don’t exactly know all of God’s plan. But we do know that God only allows evil if a greater good can come of it.
First of all, restricting people’s behaviour with a device in the brain does not stop them from having free will. Their soul could still will to do evil, but they wouldn’t be able to carry the action out. (At least the way I understand the soul and the brain to interact). So, this device in the brain is just a more hi-tech version of all the other ways we restrain criminals - handcuffs, jails, etc.
So that leads to the question of why God would allow free will, if even we mere humans see it would be better to limit free will in certain situations. Firstly, there’s the distinction I mentioned in the first paragraph about allowing free will vs. restraining someone. Second, its a very good question, its called “the problem of evil” and has lots of answers, but still remains a bit mysterious because we don’t exactly know all of God’s plan. But we do know that God only allows evil if a greater good can come of it.
4
4Horsemen
Guest
I tend to agree with the idea of a method to restrict evil behavior as long as it wouldn’t interfere with free will, if this would be logistically possible. However, this hypothetical device in the wiring of he brain or given as innoculations to reverse hormonal effects would most likely be a form of punishment given post facto after a crime (3 strikes and you’re out?) just as I suggested that castration is used sometimes today at the behest of a judge. I think Spock wants to single out those who have tendencies to do evil and target them for his experiment. The question is, what kind of test would be conclusive about predicting behavior without first witnessing the negative (evil) behavior? Who would judge? Would this be the law of the land? Sounds like Brave New World regardless of how you configure it.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Yes, in reality I would never agree to it. But his hypothetical example said that it could never be abused, and for sake of discussion I went with that.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
That already exists. I forget the drug’s name, though. It’s pretty powerful stuff.
Anyway, it dosen’t interfer with free-will. What it actually dose is change the person’s bodily chemicals, so his aggression goes down, he feels mellow, and dosen’t get any aggressive thoughts.
And there are other similar durgs, too, like, there’s one for people who want to get off addictions, where, again, it changes the chemicals in the body so the person dosen’t think about the alcohol, porn, or whatever and dosen’t have such a strong attachment to them.
S
seductus_sum
Guest
Spock, would I and everyone else be able to choose whether or not to be a part of this system? Would it be mandatory for all people to be hooked up to these sensors and calming devices? I suspect that you will say it would be mandatory but I think this needs to be clarified. Mandatory for everyone? Just for criminals or those with violent tendencies? For nobody at all?
T
tobias
Guest
I reject your premise at the outset. It is overly simplistic and purely emotion driven. The obvious response to ‘Wouldn’t it be great if there were no more murder, rape or other horrible crime?’ is an emphatic yes.
Stopping all aggressive acts of rape will not stop rape. What about in the muslim countries and others where teenage girls are forced to marry old men, there may be no aggresion in the act itself, but is it any less horrifying to the victim. What of the drug user whose capacities were distorted during an act, there brain may show no sign of aggressive behaviour to a ‘sensor’, again a crime not allieviated.
I would hate to think a soldier could not take out a suicide bomber, though the act may be abated by the sensor, he may accidentially set it off. But then would the sensor detect what an individual understands to be a noble act- as aggresion, I think not. I think you seriously underestimate the complexity of the human mind. Of course you will say that you don’t, but there are some whose conciences have been so distorted and so deadened that they believe acts of murder or rape or the like are just fine.
Then we would be left not eliminating acts of aggresion, but reprogaming behavior and thoughts, and as many have already said, this would eliminate free will. No, it would go beyond that to monitoring thoughts and behaviours to try to initiate certain thoughts and behaviors, to constantly reprogram a brain so it can fit a mold of non action.
Where then is freedom left? If restrictions are imposed upon a will, then we must speak of restricted will, not free will. I know you don’t accept that notion, but simple logic is not undone by lofty ideas, or grandiose notions.
But why stop there, if in fact we can limit certain actions, we must be able to foster others. Lets use this same futuristic technology to cause everyone to do good deeds for one another, lets cause every one to always do the right thing. Oh, that’s right we don’t neccessarily agree about what ‘the right thing’ is. Oh well, we can leave that up to whoever decided where to draw line on restriction of aggresion.
So whose will gets to remain unrestricted, to monitor and refine this technology?
If I nominate you, will you let me remain Catholic
N
nuntym
Guest
sigh Practicality, practicality…
If hypothetically this happens, then Spock, this system MUST have predecessors… predecessors that were NOT perfect. For anything perfect in this world (if there is any) must come from imperfect models through trial and ERROR! My goodness Spock, think of all the human experimentation this system must have gone through to get to its present (future?) state! How many people could have had their minds irreversibly damaged! Even if it was a gift from aliens, it has to be calibrated for human physiology.
The end does not justify the means. I vote NO.
S
seductus_sum
Guest
I have to step in and save Spock from responding to this, since I see he is getting so many replies. His was a totally hypothetical situation (see the title of his post). I think he would ask you to use your imagination to dream of a future technology that would actually be perfected the first time around. He does not care whether such a thing is actually possible, and rightly so. But he IS raising a very interesting ethical question with a lot of connections to how we perceive God and his action in this world.
I am sorry, but I do not think this is the place for practicality
.
S
seductus_sum
Guest
I feel compelled to help out Spock again. To me, at least, this does seem to affect free will. We choose to do what we do so often based on our emotions, on how we feel about a certain situation or action. If we change someone’s emotions, we are changing how they will react to a situation, we are changing how they will CHOOSE to act to a situation.
If you took away anger, less people would choose to murder. If you took away infatuation, less people would choose to rape. And so on…
S
Spock
Guest
Of that I can assure you. I have no desire to push my worldview onto anyone by using force. To use a method of conviction is much more palatable… even though - if accepted - it would be tantamount to brainwashingBut why stop there, if in fact we can limit certain actions, we must be able to foster others. Lets use this same futuristic technology to cause everyone to do good deeds for one another, lets cause every one to always do the right thing. Oh, that’s right we don’t neccessarily agree about what ‘the right thing’ is. Oh well, we can leave that up to whoever decided where to draw line on restriction of aggresion.
So whose will gets to remain unrestricted, to monitor and refine this technology?
If I nominate you, will you let me remain Catholic
For the rest of your questions I will answer them in another post.
S
Spock
Guest
Well, let me tell you one of the reasons I started to contemplate this idea. This reply goes to Tobias, as well.
My favorite sci-fi writer, Stanislaw Lem, wrote a great book, its title was: “Return from the Stars”. The story is about astronauts, who return after a long interstellar trip, and find the Earth stripped of violence. Everyone gets one injection after birth, and the result is “severing” the connection between emotions and violent actions. The people can imagine violent acts, but simply do not wish to carry them out. They experience a strong revulsion, uncomfortable physical symptoms if they contemplate violent acts.
Now, there are some interesting side effects. The life of these people is very mild, the world is very safe. There are hardly any accidents, almost no diseases (except for natural deterioration like arthritis). There is no heroism, since there is no need. The science is concerned by improving the standard of living, space travel is dying a natural death.
The heroes (the astronauts) are quite “horrified”. They cannot stomach this mild world, they miss the hardships of their past. Eventually they build a new spaceship, and “escape” this Earthly paradise.
It is a very interesting book. Makes one think. Personally I see nothing wrong with this new world. Who needs violent, bloody sports like boxing? Who needs the weekly accidents on the roads (technology prevents those). Who needs the drama of jealousy? The murders? The rapes? The wars?
The price to pay is small. Free will is not impaired, but the desire to carry out violent acts is simply missing.
4
4Horsemen
Guest
In other words, changing (chemically or otherwise) people’s emotions affects free will or how they react. Yet, is it possible that the original emotion/intent can remain unaffected (in other words, the will) but the action is prevented? That thought was already considered, but I don’t recall any definitive answer.
The use of drugs that mellow schizophrenics and psychotics, as Eucharisted pointed out, are necessary to protect the innocent in our society, like incarceration does. But, again, we institutionalize and drug people after the fact. Technologically predicting behavior would be unethical (if not impossible–brain does not equal intellect) because that would be an infringement on the freedom of the individual, not to mention the fact that mistakes would be made.
I just wonder if people with mental problems, including those with Alzheimer’s and dementia, are truly capable of making free decisions. They must have some rudimentary understanding of right and wrong and the ability to make free choices somehow. But only God can judge their hearts.
Anyways, I’m meandering and getting off the topic. I had voted ‘no’ because tampering with the intrinsics of a person’s humanity is unethical. We can try to change the bad behavior but only in a remedial way. (Keeping them locked up would go a long way).
S
seductus_sum
Guest
4Horsemen, this reply is for you as well.]
Are free will and humanity really not impaired the society you describe, Spock? It seems to me that the power of will would rest solely in the hands of the doctors implementing the system and the leaders who decided it was necessary. Even if the results were all objectively good and the system was not abused, does free will not require the freedom to choose to do evil, or, in this case, to choose to be able to choose to do evil? And I believe such a concept lies at the center of the Catholic understanding of God and man: We are left free to choose evil, precisely because it is through that same freedom that we can reject evil. We are able to choose the good and have it count only because we can choose evil.
But we do punish criminals, locking them in prison and thus restricting the power of their will to choose and do evil. We also (less frequently) force potentially dangerous psychiatric patients to take medications. In these cases, however, the cause of the measures being implemented was observed bad behavior. We don’t lock up everyone in prison with gourmet meals, a library full of great books, and television just so that they will stay out of trouble and live a pleasant life. And we don’t drug up everyone so that they will avoid bad behavior.
And we wouldn’t, I don’t think, want to implement the system you described in your original post along the same lines. Maybe… MAYBE it would be acceptable in the case of criminals for rehabilitation, and maybe even it would be alright for a non-criminal to choose to be hooked up to it so that they could avoid living in a way they fear would cause evil to others (although I doubt many people would choose such a path… but it would in this hypothetical case be their choice).
This is why I asked above whether you meant to have everyone hooked up to this system, just criminals, or whoever wanted to be. I think this makes a big difference in the discussion. If it would be mandatory, I do not think I could agree to it, just as I would not agree to have everyone put on medication or thrown into a lovely, spacious, posh prison to live their lives in a forced, perfect peace.
S
seductus_sum
Guest
I believe that complete free will requires the ability to act on one’s choices. If you take away the ability to act, do you not also affect free will?
Of course, not everyone has the right to act on their choices, particularly criminals or those who would bring evil upon others. For more on this, see my response to Spock above, also addressed to you.
For a little more illustration, though, here is another thought. One of the greatest evils is rape, and one of the worst parts about rape is that the woman is unable to choose anything. The rapist takes away her free will because he does not allow her to escape or act otherwise on her will at all. A society therefore has the authority, in my view, to punish the rapist (with both eyes toward his rehabilitation) by taking away part of his free will, or more specifically, to take away his ability to rape whomever he wishes by locking him in prison/putting him on medication (and note here how the punishment fits the crime). Ideally this would lead to rehabilitation, if the criminal comes to understand that controlling his desires and not choosing to commit crime is actually better for everyone than not doing so.
S
Spock
Guest
Good line of reasoning.
Now, tell me if my psychological profile, which occurred due to my upbrininging and which prevents me from engaging in random acts of violence, or even cheating, robs me of my free will? There were no chemicals involved, just “natural” processes of instilling desirable behavioral patterns. What is the difference between a natural process and an artificial one? What is the difference between being **unable **to commit a violent act and **not wanting **to do one? The result is the same.
I am not concerned about the who does what to achieve it. I am only interested in the abstract concept of creating a society with a certain attitude.
4
4Horsemen
Guest
I agree with you that the post by seductus_sum is a “good line of reasoning.” In fact, I think it sums up very well the reasoning for opposing the system you described in your OP. The idea of being able “to choose to choose to do evil” is certainly incorporated in Catholic thinking.
There is no other way free will can exist. You can’t split free will so that one can use it in one situation but not in another. Removing the ability to commit murder from a POTENTIAL murderer, in effect, removes the freedom to exercise choice in other areas as well since the concept of free will is not divisible.
The difference between being unable to commit a violent act and not wanting to do so is the difference of desire or will. One can be physically unable to commit a violent act due to shackles or chemicals and still desire to do so. In your system, not only the would-be rapist/murderer need to be made incapable of an evil act physically, but also rendered incapable of its desire, which removes any possibility of choice or free will. The fact that the result is the same is moot. (It was mentioned in a previous post that the term “aggression” would have to be defined to start with).
Btw, your upbringing wouldn’t “rob” you of your free will to “engage in random acts of violence” since you could still have the desire even if you didn’t fulfill it. You could also still have the free will to commit the act of violence thus going against your upbringing which often happens to be the case. Free will is a given, you might say.
4
4Horsemen
Guest
I agree that “free will requires the ability to act on one’s choices.”
We should also keep in mind that Jesus said that to even look at a woman with lust is to commit adultery with her in his heart. (Matt. 5:27-28)
Jesus also said, “That which comes out of the man, that defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these things come from within and defile the man.” (Mark 7:20-23)
I think that covers it pretty well!!!
S
Spock
Guest
Of course you can. We can desire or will (“will” is simply strong intent or desire) pretty much anything, only limited by our imagination. The fact that some of these desires cannot be fulfilled is obvious. Only if all the courses of action (save one) are removed, is the free will negated. Limited ability to carry out our desires does not negate it.
Why do you say that the result is not relevant?
4
4Horsemen
Guest
Maybe I didn’t express the idea of free will adequately. I was merely reiterating that free will is being able “to choose to choose” or make the choice to choose as poster seductus_sum pointed out. Of course we can make zillions of choices, but it’s the ability not only to choose but to realize that we have that ability (or gift) that differentiates us from lower creatures.
As for your statement in red, again, free will is NOT removed just because all the choices but one are removed. We can choose not to choose. We can still imagine and desire the objects of our thoughts or emotions. If ALL objects are theoretically removed, so is life since life is comprised of various and sundry choices. Your experiment is hypothetically interesting but practically impossible if you want human beings to be human beings.
God made the best of all worlds. Too bad Adam and Eve sinned and lost Paradise. Yet, “Oh happy fault!” (Maybe someone can reference the origin of that phrase. I think it’s part of the rubrics of a liturgy). Happy? Yes, because Jesus, our Savior, came into the world, into our history, into each of our lives in a personal way. “Let us rejoice and be glad!”
- Status