nilam
Bucaneer
Awful alliterator, antagonist, activist, artist, application artificer, all-around awesome!
Posts: 29
|
Post by nilam on Mar 27, 2012 20:24:08 GMT
An interesting question came up in the shoutbox: Is mentally dominating another inherently evil?
I would posit that it is. Any time you exert mental domination, you commit an act which completely removes the subject's free will. In effect, I would classify this as the same thing as raping someone: You are taking another's body and forcing it to do something against that person's will, in a deep and profound way that few things can really compare to. It's something that people find very personal, and doing something like that to a sentient being is a terrible thing that the recipient will carry for the rest of hir life.
Tangent mentioned things like stopping criminals and suicide prevention. For the suicide, I'd think someone who feels that s/he has no control over hir life would be worse off if a suicide attempt were foiled in such a way that s/he was powerless to prevent. Dominating someone with suicidal issues is a poor choice at best, if your intent is to help that person to recovery or stability.
As far as crime goes, wasn't that the concept behind A Clockwork Orange? A young man with severe criminal insanity is given a treatment which causes him to be unable to act violently or sexually in any circumstance in order to prevent him from repeating his offences? I seem to recall that he was rather severely exploited and despite having this "correction", he was unable to find proper employment because of his criminal record and limited education.
Crime is not often like The Joker, where it's a lifestyle choice. It's much more frequently either emotionally driven (She cheated, he insulted my family, &c) or viewed by the criminal as necessary for survival (I gotta get another hit, my children are starving, &c) and although the first could be almost reasonable if the only thing the domination did was to calm the emotions of those involved (which, by my metric, is less domination than manipulation), the second isn't particularly solvable by mind control.
Of course, there are also juvenile crimes: Kids shoplifting for thrills or social reasons. This kind of behaviour is mostly something of a learning experience, from what I've seen, and exerting some kind of mind control over kids during a developmental stage doesn't sound like something particularly rational, especially considering the side-effects of mental domination.
|
|
|
Post by Emily on Mar 28, 2012 8:01:53 GMT
A fascinating ethical question Nilam, and well phrased. What if choice could be involved in the process? Like if you could request someone to control you mentally in order to help you do something you can't do yourself- like complete a difficult task, or overcome a fear or addiction?
|
|
|
Post by Ally on Mar 28, 2012 9:35:36 GMT
Ooh, I could think about this for hours...
I think Em's suggestion of choice definitely changes the situation - although I would say that, if someone's asked for help in beating an addiction or overcoming a fear, they're already taking action for themselves, so it's not exactly total control in the first place...if that makes sense?
Personally, I feel that it would be unconscionable to use mind control to prevent suicide, for the same reasons nilam gives. A distant relative of mine committed suicide some years ago, and while it was a shock, in retrospect the extent of the planning behind her action made it clear she didn't want to be here any more - and however horrible it is for everyone else, that IS a person's choice. I'm not saying that I wouldn't try and talk someone out of suicide if I was faced with that situation - of course I would - but taking away someone's free will implies no respect for them as a person in their own right. I'm not sure I'm phrasing this very well, but I hope it makes sense.
The only circumstance under which I think mind control would be okay would be to stop someone causing immediate grievous physical harm to you or another person - and even then, only if there's no other option. (This is also the only situation where I would condone killing someone).
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Mar 28, 2012 15:51:27 GMT
*puts on his cap with horns* It is time to play Devil's Avocado!
As always, it depends. For instance, with suicide: often an attempted suicide itself is a call for help. There are many cases where people try to overdose on pills or jump from a bridge or the like and end up rescued at the last minute. Sometimes the people doing the rescuing end up putting themselves in danger. Now, for someone who is determined to end it (say because of terminal cancer and not wanting their family to be massively in debt when they're going to die anyway), these people often go out of their way to ensure they're not interrupted. Mind control won't stop these instances. And as I alluded to here, suicide affects more than just the person trying to die. Which has greater value: the desire of someone to die... or the desire of that person's loved ones and friends for that person to live and not suffer the pain and anguish of losing that person?
One of the concepts I posit in my story "Stalking the Wolf" is that mind control is not easy. For instance, take a person who suffers migraines but does not have the insurance to pay for medication and is too proud to accept a handout. It would be nearly impossible to plant a suggestion in that person's head "you will take these pills and not complain about it." (The person offering them is an empath/telepath who has problems blocking out other people's thoughts and pain.) Now, there are ways around this (like linking the thought of an action with the memory of pain and wanting to avoid that pain), but even then it's not easy.
Magic, of course, is different. But when you get down to it, using an enchantment to enhance your ability to barter in a magical world and thus getting a better price when selling stuff is as unethical as charming a bandit to getting them to fight their own associates instead of you.
Back to mind control again, when you consider this is taking away someone's free will... this is also what laws do. You are forced not to take actions or to behave in certain ways, with penalties and punishments that are used to enforce a course of action. Is this ethical? From a certain perspective, no, it's not. You're denying someone the freedom to behave as they want. You are denying them free will. But when free will ends up harming or interfering with someone else... then free will itself enters into a hazy ground of ethics.
|
|
|
Post by X'o'Lore on Mar 28, 2012 18:13:16 GMT
Thanks for taking a defense on that Tangent.
Of course the law enforcement thing is one that could be discussed on it's own but it gets into silly philosophical discussions where we could throw out quotes like "To be free, we must be chained" and such. Point is freedom doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want. At least not without consequences. You can still TRY to do whatever you want, but at no point is success guaranteed and certain actions may be strongly discouraged.
As for mind control, that's kinda a broad question. Mind control could come in many forms and degrees. Does it influence emotions? Does it simply claim motor control of a person's limbs, does it alter their thoughts directly to make them do something on their own that they normally wouldn't, or does it simply plant a suggestion?
Can you make a benign/baleful type distinction? Benign meaning that the target/victim still has a choice in the matter and basically has to surrender control to another for it to work sorta like Emily brought up. Basically, is it consensual? Baleful obviously is the more forceful side of the equation where the target/victim is dominated by force.
Mind Control is a tool in the way a gun made to kill people is a tool. It's purpose is generally harsh, but depending on the degree, form, and use, and overall circumstances, there may be cases that are justifiable. In the case of suicide, there comes the question of values. Weighing life versus free will is the actual argument some are trying to have here, but I appreciate that Tangent tried to frame it more in reality as a person's will is often muddled and unclear even to themselves.
Personally I'd also throw out the term "evil" entirely and ask "Is it cruel?"
|
|
nilam
Bucaneer
Awful alliterator, antagonist, activist, artist, application artificer, all-around awesome!
Posts: 29
|
Post by nilam on Mar 28, 2012 18:32:51 GMT
Perhaps I did not state this adequately: I am not talking about influence or coercion, I am talking about mental domination. There is a distinction here, and Tangent's last sentence about laws being a form of mind control underscores this: Domination is keeping people from making a choice at all, while influence can be used to change how a person views the consequences of an action.
The difference is the difference between deciding the new video game system is not worth your life's savings, and being unable to hover above your chair. Laws provide consequences for an action, but people can still perform that action if they feel the results will be worth the consequences. Tienanmen Square is an example of people deciding that a law is not worth following. The people chose that action and were punished. The fact remains that they COULD choose that action.
Mental domination, by contrast, does not offer a choice. With respect to the person having migraines, making such a domination has a reason: The person with a migraine is harming an individual by having a headache. This brings it closer to the territory Ally was talking about: Is the choice that person is making causing harm to others? Should it be morally permissible to force someone else to do something, possibly against the latter's will, in order to resolve a situation involving harming another?
I would say the latter is an interesting question: Do ends justify means? I think in the situation involving migraines, killing would be unjustified. By the same logic, domination is probably overkill as well, for the reasons stated above: It's an invasion of someone else in a very personal way, possibly causing irreparable harm. I think there are contextual means of handling the situation which should be exhausted before resorting to such drastic action:
Is it a proximity issue? I know when people bring a screaming child near my office, it can be frustrating, but I don't view harming the child or parent as a reasonable response if they can be redirected somewhere else, at which point I (personally) no longer care what the child screams.
Is it a temporary situation, where the person with migraines will not be a headache for the empath for substantial periods? In that case, a more socially and morally responsible response would be to simply wait it out.
If separation is not an option or will not correct the issue, I would think something along the lines of a "coercion" would be better suited than "domination". Saying something like, "If you want to work with me, I need you to keep your headache under control. Consider taking these pills part of my consultation fee." would be preferable to forcing the person, without permission, to take the pills. That's the way such things are handled under normal circumstances, and I don't see why having a power which may be more convenient makes that any less responsible to convince the other party instead of using something potentially harmful.
Em brought up a very interesting point: If the domination is permitted, or perhaps requested, is it permissible? I know I had a few students who would have loved to pay an ACM member to take their CSC finals for them, and to that extent I think the question of responsibility becomes much more complicated. Is it academic dishonesty if someone else dominated you and wrote a paper using your hands? Is telepathic collaboration substantially different than any other form of collaboration?
I think with respect to responsibility, technology provides an excellent example for us. We are defined online by a set of credentials which associate us with data in some way, but we also have (hypothetically) a natural person associated with the connection. In this respect, I am me, but anyone who could provide my credentials could also be seen as "me". Am I responsible for things done by someone else who is assumed to be me? If someone hijacks my account and posts links to illegal substitute medications, am I the one to blame for it?
There are limits to what a person with my account can do, but the answer tends to be that the natural person behind an action is ultimately responsible for it in terms of social implications, but legally it tends to be that the person responsible for an account is the one responsible for all actions of that account...
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Mar 28, 2012 20:26:54 GMT
I actually examine aspects of this in the novel I'm rewriting (and I'll go into this at more length when I'm not on break at work and am at home). There is a difference between coercion and domination. Coercion is allowing the person to continue thinking, but altering one aspect. For instance, say they constantly crack their knuckles and a telepath alters their thinking so they stop doing that behavior... but leave nothing else unchanged. It was an unethical use of telepathy. But it was not domination.
And while domination can be considered evil, it can also be used for good purposes. One such example was when in an AD&D campaign I was running, the wizard Dominated a giant troll that had been captured and experimented upon by mind flayers. The domination was only used to ensure the Troll didn't attack the group initially... and the Troll was convinced to join the group by tricking it into thinking they were also trolls... just of a different nature. Only twice did the wizard "tug" the reins. Once, to save the Troll's life by having it duck at just the right moment to avoid being killed by something big. The second time was a nightmare sequence and technically didn't happen but was still a cool moment. =^-^=
Was that Domination ethical? Was it evil? Was it perhaps both?
Just food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by Emily on Mar 28, 2012 20:47:14 GMT
You guys this is a fascinating discussion! I think this is one of those topics where you have to weigh up justification against ethics- mental domination can never really be considered ethical, but in some situations can be justified (like murrrrder > )
|
|
nilam
Bucaneer
Awful alliterator, antagonist, activist, artist, application artificer, all-around awesome!
Posts: 29
|
Post by nilam on Mar 29, 2012 3:39:29 GMT
Well, now that's an interesting point, Tangent.
I think there are some implications for the troll that you haven't considered:
How long did the troll live after being dominated? Was it better treated for that time than it was during its enslavement under the Mind Flayers? Would there have been a way to convince the troll not to attack your party without dominating it, for example, by charming it or some less invasive means of incapacitating it?
If it ended up just wandering off down the tunnels or similarly fading into the backstory, did it remember and/or know about the domination? You mentioned convincing the troll that you and your party members were "trolls". Did it ever find out that you were not, or a way to differentiate between your pseudo-trolls and other creatures of your race? That kind of inability could adversely impact its ability to interact with other races, especially in a world so hostile to trolls as AD&D.
I rather hesitate to use AD&D as a prime example, in no small part because AD&D was designed to justify tomb robbing and xenophobic sadism under a guise of morality, with an "Ends justify the means" default answer. Morality is usually pushed into the background, unless the DM happened to draw a story up with morality primarily in mind, because of how easily it can sidetrack a campaign. We can afford to discuss this at great length here, but in a campaign setting this conversation would just give a bunch of people a headache.
Of course, a lot of my arguments rely on a basic premise: Dominated creatures have a sense of self. A dominated construct would have no objections by virtue of not having a sense of self to violate.
|
|