So you’re going to remove racism and prejudice from everyone’s mind, eh? For starters, I guess that means 100% approval of gay marriage from now on. That’s an easy issue compared to some others.

Eh, same-sex marriage rights ARE a very trivial issue to begin with.

I guess that also means the elimination of national borders.

Yes, it pretty much does.

Because nationalism is a form of prejudice for your nation’s people against other nation’s people. We can expect Canada, the US, and Mexico to form one big happy family, with many Mexicans moving across the now-open borders to find jobs.

Actually, it goes MUCH further than that. Involving, among other things, crossing the borders towards Mexico in order to find ways of making it more autonomous. It is indeed a form of duty that overrules national borders, and has always been so.

That our societies and governments are too immature to fulfill it does not make it any less of a duty.

With the elimination of religious prejudice, will everyone join one unified religion? Or will they abandon religion? How can religious differences persist when no one is prejudiced against anyone else’s beliefs? Discuss.

Eh. Religion is a very individual matter, despite very significant, legitimate and real demands to make it a global one at the same time. Worrying about how to preserve religious differences is in fact very much pointless, akin to worrying about how to keep water wet. There is CERTAINLY no need to “keep” prejudices in order to “preserve” religious differences or even religious variety; individual thought and interpretations are plenty enough (and more healthy) for that.

Of course, I don’t know that it is even a bad thing to unify (or even abandon) religion either. Religion is and has always been a placeholder of sorts for humanistic philosophy, after all.

Finally we get to the toughest moral issues such as capital punishment, abortion, and euthanasia. Are differences on these issues based on rational thought or irrational prejudice?

They have real, significant issues at their cores, but they are usually treated on a very irrational way, particularly abortion and euthanasia.

Again, there is simply no basis for claims that prejudice has a role to fulfill in keeping things healthy here. Much on the contrary, really.

For instance, is a conservative who opposes abortion prejudiced against women’s rights or liberal interpretations of the Bible?

In a typical stance, he is blind to the causes of abortion, which are social in nature and make any attempts to forbid (or even to allow) it quite besides the point. The true level for discussing abortion is that which involves making _less necessary_, not _less (or more) allowed_. There is no moral reason to respect people’s wish to make abortions, because _people don’t want to make abortions_.

Tell us, Chad: What position will a prejudice-free person take on abortion?

Surely that of addressing social issues such as lack of adequate sex education, revaluating the roles of parents in society, and discussion of alternate family models such as larger, more community-oriented familial cores. Discussing if it should be “allowed” is quite futile; abortions _happen_ regardless of whatever the law says about them.

Slare:

Gotta say I agree with a lot of what Chad is saying. Many here seem to assume that mind control is an all-or-nothing scenario, and I see a ton of use of the slippery slope logical fallacy.

Funny. I don’t think there is a slope at all, myself. This is in fact unusually close to a matter of pure principle, all things considered.

I don’t see why a moral person couldn’t legitimately come to the conclusion that prejudice is an inherently bad thing, it serves no useful purpose in humanity, and that person could decide to remove it and it alone, leaving the rest of the person’s free will alone.

For one thing, because prejudice is a natural and probably needed part of the development of a sense of identity. The blame lies in sticking with it instead of overcoming it, not in having it in the first place.

For another thing, are you even sure there is such a thing as free will?

Would they think long and hard about it? Sure, I would hope so. Its certainly not a small thing to do, and its not a black and white issue. But in the end, I’d say the moral person would HAVE TO do it. With great power comes great responsibility – and to do otherwise would be abrogating that responsibility.

Sure, that goes without saying and is already true for everyone.

ALso, I tend to see this process as not mind control so much as….enlightenment I guess? The people affected would still have a full range of choices and actions, you have merely removed one of the input filters that blur their perception of reality. The people you affect would see things more clearly than before, and be able to act accordingly of their own free will.

Forgive me for the language, but that is an unbelievable load of bull. “Enlightment” my arse.

Rob Scmidt asks what are the other consequences of removing prejudice? Looking at his list of potential outcomes, I don’t see anything bad in there. I really do think people will make a better decision sans prejudice, on every subject. The world may not end up looking like it does now, but that is very unlikely to be worse that what were have currently.

From what I know of psychology and sociology, prejudice is a natural and needed (if dangerous) subproduct of the paths that create personalities and identities. “Forbidding” it is in effect blocking the moral and emotional development of a person (or society). If prejudice is basically a betrayal against society, than disallowing it is very much an even worse betrayal, for it locks people at an even more immature stage.

So yeah, I definitely fall on the side of not doing something to fix this planet when you have the power do do so as being EVIL.

To each its own, I guess. But that sure is disturbing.

forcing your personal value system on the whole world is actually an illustration of an invididual’s sense of morality trumping the system and the greater good

Only if that person’s “personal value system” is not itself the morality of the system and the morality of the greater good. Moralities can be shared, and if the forcer’s morality is that of the system and the greater good, then that person will merely be a tool of the system. By saying that we have to allow an individual to have a morality against the greater good just because that’s the morality they happen to have, then that individual’s sense of morality will trump the system and the greater good.

If you honestly think that forcing people to behave in a way you, personally, find to be “better” is a good thing to do, then you are, at heart, a horrible and evil person.

The problem wasn’t forcing people to do things, it was forcing people to think things. Every law ever made forces people to do things. Let’s say someone is about to stab someone else, so I grab their arm. I have forced them to act in a way they didn’t want to. What a horrible person I must be! Perhaps it would be better just to force everyone to act in ways that you find evil.

People who pass laws to force others to follow their religion

What do you mean by religion? “Thou shalt not kill” is part of a religion – are laws against murder also bad. Scratch that, of course they are, they force people to act in a way they wouldn’t. God, I wouldn’t want to get murdered near you, as you decide whether it would be acceptable to call the police, and force your preference against murder on the murderer. We must always treat people as ends and not means, mustn’t we Kant.

I just trying to imagine how evil you think it was for the Allies to invade Germany, and force the Nazis to behave in a way different to how they saw best. If evil happens when good men do nothing, then I guess you’re king of the do-nothings.

Here’s a question, if you had the complete power of telepathy, and I had the complete power of telepathy, and I was about to do the act of ultimate evil, and create world peace and tolerance, would you use telepathy on me to stop me? Because if you would, then your as bad as me, and if you wouldn’t then your still as bad as me. My morality may be ultimate evil, but at least it’s consistent.

Even if you don’t believe in the concept of free will, surely you can see that telepathy eliminates the possibility of decision-making.

It depends on the kind of telepathy. If you force someone’s actions, make them into a puppet, then you take away decision-making. However, if you instead change “one’s opinions”, then that person can make a decision based on there new opinions.

While there are influences to the way I make decisions, my ability to decide is not controlled by others. Telepathy would be control, not influence.

Any one experience is only going to influence your decisions. However, for the sum of all your experiences (and circumstances) to not come to a point of control there must be something else that influences decisions. My problem is that I can’t see what that thing could possibly be. It can’t just be another circumstance, yet at the same time if it is purely random, that’s not really free will either.

And the movie Minority Report has nothing on the short story, which is much harsher and direct in its idea that the system and greater good trumps an individual’s sense of morality in some cases.

You do realize that forcing your personal value system on the whole world is actually an illustration of an invididual’s sense of morality trumping the system and the greater good, not the other way around, right?

If you honestly think that forcing people to behave in a way you, personally, find to be “better” is a good thing to do, then you are, at heart, a horrible and evil person. No two ways about it.

People who pass laws to force others to follow their religion have nothing on a person who seriously thinks that it would be stupid not to use magic or super-science or mutant powers to force other people’s behaviour to conform to their personal preference.

I’ve been enjoying your nostalgia. I do hope that you’ll keep your political views (as in, “I know best and it would be stupid to not force you to also do what I know is best”) to yourself in the rest of the articles.

Theno

And the movie Minority Report has nothing on the short story, which is much harsher and direct in its idea that the system and greater good trumps an individual’s sense of morality in some cases.

“I can see no real difference between telepathy and the sum of experience and circumstance that leads us to make the decisions that we made….what’s the difference between telepathy and convincing someone with argument, whether an argument succeeds is going to be based on the circumstances that person has already lived through. It will either succeed or it won’t, they won’t have any choice about it.”

With telepathy, someone makes another person think a certain way. For example, the telepath makes someone now rob a bank, something they never would have considered before. Otherwise, one hears an argument, makes a judgement about its merits, and comes up with an answer based on one’s opinions and experiences. Without a telepath telling me to rob a bank, I can judge risk vs. reward, figure out the morality of taking money one did not earn, and decide how to proceed. I can say “yes” or “no,” instead of having to say “yes.” Even if you don’t believe in the concept of free will, surely you can see that telepathy eliminates the possibility of decision-making.

“This whole idea of free will strikes me as completely absurd – either action is random, and therefore it isn’t free, or action is determined, and therefore it isn’t free. This absolute insistance that we have free will comes of as narcissism to me, the idea that not being free would mean that you aren’t actually eprfect in ever way. And it seems like it’s this narcissism which stops people from asking why they have the opinions they have, who it is that is already controlling their minds. Before you decide that you have complete power over cause and effect, perhaps you should get over yourself.”

Well, I know I’m far from perfect, and I would never say I have complete control over cause and effect. Hell, sometimes I feel like I don’t have complete control over my reactions to certain situations. I’ll grant you that we don’t have much control over cause.

We can, however, change or alter the effect. (I dont believe in predestination, and I don’t consider the influence of life experience to be the same thing) I have to eat, so I can go to work and earn money for food or I can steal or I can beg or I can do nothing. Sure, my previous experience would say working is the best option, but the choice remains. I can listen to an argument about the merits of, say, universal health care, and decide how I feel about it. New data might come into my awareness that alters my view, but I can decide how much credence I give said data. I know I feel differently about the issue than my parents. I know I feel differently about the issue than some columnists or politicians. While there are influences to the way I make decisions, my ability to decide is not controlled by others. Telepthy would be control, not influence.

The ol’ ethics-of-mind-control discussion-starter, eh? Nevett, you diabolical.

Snare — Thanks. It is a matter of degrees, which is part of my argument, but you stated it better than I have to this point.

ALso, I tend to see this process as not mind control so much as….enlightenment I guess? The people affected would still have a full range of choices and actions, you have merely removed one of the input filters that blur their perception of reality. The people you affect would see things more clearly than before, and be able to act accordingly of their own free will.

Rob Scmidt asks what are the other consequences of removing prejudice? Looking at his list of potential outcomes, I don’t see anything bad in there. I really do think people will make a better decision sans prejudice, on every subject. The world may not end up looking like it does now, but that is very unlikely to be worse that what were have currently.

So yeah, I definitely fall on the side of not doing something to fix this planet when you have the power do do so as being EVIL.

I guess that also means the elimination of national borders. Because nationalism is a form of prejudice for your nation’s people against other nation’s people. We can expect Canada, the US, and Mexico to form one big happy family, with many Mexicans moving across the now-open borders to find jobs.

With the elimination of religious prejudice, will everyone join one unified religion? Or will they abandon religion? How can religious differences persist when no one is prejudiced against anyone else’s beliefs? Discuss.

Finally we get to the toughest moral issues such as capital punishment, abortion, and euthanasia. Are differences on these issues based on rational thought or irrational prejudice? For instance, is a conservative who opposes abortion prejudiced against women’s rights or liberal interpretations of the Bible? Tell us, Chad: What position will a prejudice-free person take on abortion?

You monitor all the people who are thinking about committing rape and brain-blast the ones who act on their thoughts and begin raping someone. I.e., you intervene when a crime is occurring, same as the police. But not before the crime has occurred.

Sorry if this is less efficient than mind-wiping people in advance. I imagine Orwell's "1984," "V for Vendetta's" England, and Hitler's Third Reich were most efficient at preventing rapes. We choose not to live in such societies for obvious reasons.

As someone said, read the original SQUADRON SUPREME maxi-series for more ethical arguments. Also see the movie "Minority Report."

Isn’t this what Identity Crisis critics call “mind rape”?

You know, if my ex-best friend could control and alter people’s minds WITHOUT a special helmet, I’d probably would be a little more wary of using a special helmet to do the same thing. Sure, this was years before Xavier shut Magneto’s mind off in “Fatal Attractions,” but I wouldn’t be surprised if deep down, Magnus has always found something unnerving about Xavier’s telepathic abilities. I’m sure one of the things that crossed Magneto’s mind back when he used the mind-control helmet was, “what if Charles were to do the same thing to me?”

And really, your charges against the X-Men can be made against many other superheroes who routinely battle murderous opponents who are too commercialy successful to be disposed of. Take Batman for instance, it bothers me how Batman tolerates the Joker mass murdering monthly (and killing and crippling several people close to Batman) and then just being return to that nice revolving door spa they call Arkham.

The charges against the X-Men cannot be made against most other superheroes, just a select few. And I agree, Batman is one of them, and in fact may be the absolute worst offender of being more of a problem than a help to the community. But to me modern DC superheroes are a lost cause anyway, I don’t even count them. I was talking strictly other Marvel heroes.

And really, your charges against the X-Men can be made against many other superheroes who routinely battle murderous opponents who are too commercialy successful to be disposed of. Take Batman for instance, it bothers me how Batman tolerates the Joker mass murdering monthly (and killing and crippling several people close to Batman) and then just being return to that nice revolving door spa they call Arkham.

Okay, Batman never offered Joker a room in the Batcave to “rehabilitate” him, but I daresay a room in the Batcave could be harder to escape than Arkham Hotel.