Should Government have the power to make people "better" without their consent [spoilers for Film "Serenity"]

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I'm watching Serentity with my son and we're up to the point where the film explains what happened to Miranda and how the Reavers were created.  What if the "Pax" worked?  What if we could actually suppress agression in humans to make people get along without fighting preventing most of what we define as evil.  

I suppose another way to phrase the question could be what is more important people's freedom, including the freedom to do horrible things, or protecting everyone from people's desire to do those horrible things?

[sologdin]

the principle underlying the question goes to not only to compulsory education and health care (such as immunizations), but also to all health & safety regulation, to provision of public sanitation as well as law & order, public art installations, and so on.  perhaps, further, to the extent that the bill of rights has the effect of making people better insofar as it provides for a number of fundamental rights, it may be a violation to impose those liberties in the absence of consent, surely.

[The Marquis de Leech]

My immediate thought was immunisation and fluoridation of the water supply.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, sologdin said:

the principle underlying the question goes to not only to compulsory education and health care (such as immunizations), but also to all health & safety regulation, to provision of public sanitation as well as law & order, public art installations, and so on.  perhaps, further, to the extent that the bill of rights has the effect of making people better insofar as it provides for a number of fundamental rights, it may be a violation to impose those liberties in the absence of consent, surely.

Yup.  I see this as a very difficult existential question.  Mal was not just upset about what happened when it was tried, which "in Universe" was clearly criminal and covered up, he said was angry that it was tried.  

Should government have the power to inoculate the populus against passion?  Any number of science fiction stories and films have said this is wrong because passion is where art and other intangible things that make our societies unique and worthwhile come from.  Or because people have the inalienable right to refuse this type of tampering with their psyches/consciousnesses.  However, those are not terribly utilitarian points of view.  

If we had the potential to virtually eliminate crime, war, or other evils with such an inoculation would the loss of freedom and passion be worth such a benefit?  Can an argument like this come down to pure cost/benefit analysis?

[Altherion]

We do this to children via a variety of medical procedures. I think it is acceptable as long as you can convince practically everyone that it is unambiguously better. This works with concrete problems (e.g. protect from measles, straighten out a severely scoliotic spine), but I don't see how you can make a case for it with something like "suppress aggression." What does that even mean? I can't think of a single interpretation which is unambiguously good: aggression is not always bad or, at the very least, it can be a lesser evil.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Altherion said:

We do this to children via a variety of medical procedures. I think it is acceptable as long as you can convince practically everyone that it is unambiguously better. This works with concrete problems (e.g. protect from measles, straighten out a severely scoliotic spine), but I don't see how you can make a case for it with something like "suppress aggression." What does that even mean? I can't think of a single interpretation which is unambiguously good: aggression is not always bad or, at the very least, it can be a lesser evil.

Altherion,

The movie states that the drug induced the majority of the population to literally lay down where they were and die.  And it created "the Revers" (Hyperagressive humans) in about 10% of the cases.

What if art, music, and literature were the only casualties.  Would that price be worth it to eliminate most crime and war?  Should people have the right to refuses such an inoculation?

[James Arryn]

Rare Gen thread that ought to have spoiler tag.

[Altherion]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What if art, music, and literature were the only casualties.  Would that price be worth it to eliminate most crime and war?  Should people have the right to refuses such an inoculation?

See, this is exactly why I said "unambiguously better." Your hypothetical is a trade-off which, incidentally, would at the very least put millions of people out of work and make life less worth living (depending on what you call "art", it could be a whole lot worse). No, this would not be worth the price and people would fight you tooth and nail.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 

Clearing quote.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Rare Gen thread that ought to have spoiler tag.

JA,

Title edited.  If this gets shifted to entertainment I'm going to be irritated.

[James Arryn]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

JA,

Title edited.  If this gets shifted to entertainment I'm going to be irritated.

Thanks Scott.

If that happens I will fully participate in your 'Should authorities be allowed to force political issues inspired by film watching to the entertainment forum in a free society?' thread.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

JA,

Ah, but the board isn't public.  We are subject to the arbitary power of Ran and the Mods because its his space.  The same is not true of Government.  Should Government have the power to force us to take something that would make us "better"?  "Better" being defined as less likely to break existing laws or push for changes that would reduce Government power.

[drawkcabi]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Altherion,

The movie states that the drug induced the majority of the population to literally lay down where they were and die.  And it created "the Revers" (Hyperagressive humans) in about 10% of the cases.

What if art, music, and literature were the only casualties.  Would that price be worth it to eliminate most crime and war?  Should people have the right to refuses such an inoculation?

Do we get in their place to be gun fu experts?

[sologdin]

is gun fu equilibrium?

Spoiler

which has a similar eradicate the passions narrative?

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Spoiler

 

Drawk,

Don't make me put another spoiler warning... please

[drawkcabi]

sorry scot

solo,

yeah

 

On topic

The trade off wouldn't be worth it to me if creativity, passion(both negative and positive) music and artistry were all taken away. I wouldn't want to live in a non-aggressive nonviolent world if we were all just eating, pooping, sleeping with nothing more to living.

[Rippounet]

This is a bit like asking whether it is morally acceptable to change what humanity and/or the "human experience" is. And it's a huge question, depending on your vision of humanity and the human experience. It can include a lot of aspects of technological or medical progress as well.

Humanity: does it include the bad and the good? Can you define one without the other? Do some negative aspects (like agressivity) actually have a function (social or biological), or indirect positive effects (passion and will) ? Does being a human mean that you must struggle with your impulses to master them and use them, or are they merely an obstacle in the path to enlightenment?
The human experience: is there a point to it? Spiritual/religious people see it as a moral experiment. Others may see it as the developement of power and humility. Some may even argue that there is no human experience without challenge, or that there is no progress (biological or social) without conflict. Is the betterment of humanity or the self a project that should be imposed on humans by human societies?

From a historical point of view, we are now at a point where we seem to have decided (in Western societies at least) that the needs of the many do not always outweigh the needs of the few. Or, to put it differently, that you cannot work for the collective wellbeing of society without taking into account individual liberties and free will.

I am personally a strong believer in education. If a drug such as "Pax" existed, it would be up to each individual to decide whether they want to take it or not, and it would be the duty of the institutions to educate them to make an informed decision. Forcibly giving it to the people would be a new and extreme version of fascism.
Of course, you don't need a drug to educate people so that they can control their agressivity. The betterment of humanity does not require drugs.

A relevant comparison might be chemical castration for people with sex drives that somehow affect their ability to function as productive members of society. It should always be voluntary, though of course, prison would remain the alternative for criminals.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Rippounet,

I agree with you.  However, if human society could end war and criminality with such a medication wouldn't that be a huge boon?  Perhaps social progams for true equality in society could work without bugs in such a society?  Is a goal of true equality and an end to bias worth the loss of freedom such a medication could engender?

[Jo498]

It's not really a new question. Remember Clockwork Orange [spoilers!] where we are dealing not with prophylactic measures but with a brutal criminal.

It basically boils down (not that this means it could be answered in a sentence or two) what one considers the essence or core of human dignity and non-negotiable and which goods or goals are negotiable. E.g. "puts millions of people (the ones producing weapons and ammo) out of their jobs" is probably not a great argument against ending war and shady dealing in arms.

"Treatment turns Alex into a meek puppet who cannot even defend himself and neither enjoy sex nor music" might [of course, the message of that movie is that it is not even acceptable in such a case] be an appropriate treatment or punishment for a brutal rapist, but to turn prophylactically almost everyone into meek puppets who can neither defend themselves nor enjoy sex or music to avoid crime would be destroying humanity in favor of a life without violence but hardly worth living for most people.

[ThinkerX]

I am reminded of the situation just a decade or so back when local schools, apparently acting on their own, could issue powerful medications to juveniles. My brothers first wife went bonkers when she started taking the pills intended for her kids.

 

I also see a potential 'quiet solution' to another major global issue with 'stealth medication.'  Suppose, just suppose, thanks to a bit genetic (?) tinkering, these pills or chemicals could induce sterility without other adverse effect. Set up distribution so around 90% of the global populace unknowingly takes such 'medication.'  Global birthrate plummets. Couple generations, overpopulation and attendant concerns are pretty much gone.  On the one hand, highly unethical.  On the other, possibly a best case solution to a looming catastrophe with the potential to crash global civilization.