Let's go into a hypothetical future

[seductus_sum]

For the thousandth time… it does** take away** “free will”, it merely **restricts **it.

If someone is not allowed to choose to do evil at all and under no circumstances, I say that person has, at best, a serious restriction on his free will. But even that I don’t think quite covers it: I would rather say that person has no free will in any real sense. Any choice that person might make would be predetermined, as it were, not to be evil.

A little more restriction decreasing suffering is good. A little more freedom to help others would be good.

This is your opinion and is reasonable. But, again, our knowledge of what might be best or ideal is limited by our limited nature. Thus nobody can say for certain, “If that flood had not happened, things would be better,” or “If that murder had been unsuccessful, things would be better.”

False dichotomy.

I disagree.

 

[david_friol_1]

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?

Hey Spock
No!
Peace to you