Morality of mind control…

[overgeeked]

IMO, it’s not very useful to talk about Mind Control in terms of evil or not. Taking control of someone’s mind and make them do things that go against their very believes and do harm to themselves or their loved ones is all the way up in terms of wrong. Using hypnosis to help a consentant patient to help them stop smoking is not even on the scale of wrongness, even if both can be considered mind control.

It seems like there's two factors at play. The intended outcome and the question of consent.

Without consent, good intent. You'd have to make an incredibly strong case for the intended outcome being overwhelmingly good to warrant a lack of consent. Most people view having their free will violated as such an egregious personal harm that even doctors and nurses who perform beneficial surgery or dispense medicine without consent can and often are charged with a crime. Something like the only way to stop a serial killer is with mind control, so it's justified. A kid about to step out into the street and be hit by a car, so it's justified. Etc. The contention here is where the line for justification sits.

Without consent, bad intent. Taking over someone's mind to hurt them or others. The only point of contention here seems to be the label, i.e. whether to call it "extremely wrong" or "pure evil."

With consent, good intent. Helping someone quit smoking or elective surgery, etc. No point discussing it as there's no real objection here.

With consent, bad intent. Consenting to be harmed. This would be the squick factor. Jessica Jones consenting to be controlled by Kilgrave. Think some extreme BDSM subcultures and we'll leave it there.

 

[overgeeked]

Also, as such, the question is probably best framed as “is mind control, defined as supernaturally imposing your will on another person, ever morally defensible?” And my answer would be “yes, but under fairly limited circumstances such as self-defence or prevention of a much greater harm, such as the deaths of others.” This would also be my answer about physical violence or killing. Being morally defensible is of course not the same thing as being a good or moral action.

This is my stance exactly.

 

[overgeeked]

Does mind control being evil or not depend on whether the target has free will? <Insert not worked out thoughts on fate/destiny actually being incarnate in a game and whether fighting against those is evil, or if one even could if there is no free will?>

I think that would be its own discussion for another thread.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That’s because we assume everything we are allowed to use has a therapeutic function. We don’t get to use potassium cyanide or arsenic since they don’t have much in the way of therapeutic use.

I would repeat my assertion that this debate is only useful if we assume the definition of mind control requires a coercive or non-consenting situation. You’re forcing your will on someone else, you are controlling them - if you’re giving them telepathic therapy with their knowledge and consent that is in no way mind control.

Also, as such, the question is probably best framed as “is mind control, defined as supernaturally imposing your will on another person, ever morally defensible?” And my answer would be “yes, but under fairly limited circumstances such as self-defence or prevention of a much greater harm, such as the deaths of others.” This would also be my answer about physical violence or killing. Being morally defensible is of course not the same thing as being a good or moral action.

Again though, this assumes some objective absolute definitions of good and evil that apply to everyone for all time.

 

[Deset Gled]

Also, as such, the question is probably best framed as “is mind control, defined as supernaturally imposing your will on another person, ever morally defensible?”

My D&D barbarian roommate doesn't know I'm a wizard (they think I'm just an Aristocrat). One day they pay me their portion of the rent in gold pieces. The next day, I magically transport the gold back to their secret storage (which they believe is completely secure). I claim they never paid me and now owe a late fee. They check their stash and find the gold there. Because they believe it's impossible for me to access their storage, they acquiesce that they must be mistaken and pay me extra.

Did I supernaturally impose my will, or just use supernatural powers to impose my will? Is there a difference? Would it be different if I used a Star Trek teleporter to do the same thing?

This is just one contrived scenario to explain why I don't think the word "supernatural" is relevant to the discussion. It's a shield to let people separate their opinions on mind control in fantasy (or sci fi) from their opinions in real life.

 

[Laurefindel]

I get that, but I'm kind of wondering what percentage of people who were asked to classify arsenic, cyanide, hemlock, strychnine, insulin, Benadryl, acetaminophen, and aspirin into two groups of four wouldn't come up with the first four and the last four based on how often they were commonly thought of as poisons and medicines.

Is there absolutely no use at all to that division? Was it thrust on us by murder mystery writers, the little skull and cross-bone stickers that say poison instead of something else that couldn't literally go on every product, and calling them poison control hotlines instead of poisoning control hotlines?

Poison definitely has meaning and is a useful everyday tool to describe things. Because of warning symbols, I know that I need to be more careful around bleach than salt, even if they are both chlorine products. But like ‘Evil’, ‘Poison’ leaves no room for subtlety or quantification, which I think is important is some discussions.

In the case at hand, whether Obi Wan committed an evil act in mind controlling the stormtrooper in ANH, i think the discussion requires more subtlety than a yes/no answer. With the poison analogy, Obi Wan gave the stormtrooper an indigestion, or a laxative; not exactly pure kindness. He moved around the stormtrooper obstacle in a non-lethal way. Was it wrong to use mind control? Probably. Was it worse than straight up killing the guard, probably not. Was it worse than remaining complicit and inactive against an Evil empire? Debatable. Must Obi Wan be labeled as evil because he used mind control? That’s where I have to say no. I think on the contrary, that his first offensive act in an open conflict was relatively ethical.

At any case, I think that Obi Wan could have slept that night (well, let’s say’s this is not the incident that would have weighted heavily on his conscience on that day), which he might not have if mind control was irrevocably evil.

 

[Reynard]

My D&D barbarian roommate doesn't know I'm a wizard (they think I'm just an Aristocrat). One day they pay me their portion of the rent in gold pieces. The next day, I magically transport the gold back to their secret storage (which they believe is completely secure). I claim they never paid me and now owe a late fee. They check their stash and find the gold there. Because they believe it's impossible for me to access their storage, they acquiesce that they must be mistaken and pay me extra.

Did I supernaturally impose my will, or just use supernatural powers to impose my will? Is there a difference? Would it be different if I used a Star Trek teleporter to do the same thing?

This is just one contrived scenario to explain why I don't think the word "supernatural" is relevant to the discussion. It's a shield to let people separate their opinions on mind control in fantasy (or sci fi) from their opinions in real life.

Nothing in that example is "mind control." It is trickery.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think posts juxtapositing mind control versus killing are sort of missing the point. The idea isn't "Is mind control more evil.than killing?" The question is "Is mind control, in and of itself, an evil."

This question makes only sense if one assumes a moral framework in which things are good or evil independent of the context. Another framework is that the most moral thing one can do in a situation is good, even though in some other context where better options were available that same thing would be evil.

 

[Deset Gled]

Nothing in that example is "mind control." It is trickery.

The definition given was "imposing your will".

Trickery is just a mundane version of mind control.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

It seems like there's two factors at play. The intended outcome and the question of consent.

Without consent, good intent. You'd have to make an incredibly strong case for the intended outcome being overwhelmingly good to warrant a lack of consent. Most people view having their free will violated as such an egregious personal harm that even doctors and nurses who perform beneficial surgery or dispense medicine without consent can and often are charged with a crime. Something like the only way to stop a serial killer is with mind control, so it's justified. A kid about to step out into the street and be hit by a car, so it's justified. Etc. The contention here is where the line for justification sits.

Without consent, bad intent. Taking over someone's mind to hurt them or others. The only point of contention here seems to be the label, i.e. whether to call it "extremely wrong" or "pure evil."

With consent, good intent. Helping someone quit smoking or elective surgery, etc. No point discussing it as there's no real objection here.

With consent, bad intent. Consenting to be harmed. This would be the squick factor. Jessica Jones consenting to be controlled by Kilgrave. Think some extreme BDSM subcultures and we'll leave it there.

A person charges at the wizard with a sword, with the intent of killing the wizard. The wizard casts Suggestion,

“Drop your sword and go take a 5 km walk to think about your actions”

DM: you used mind control without their consent! Evil!

I don’t really buy the whole “without consent, it’s evil” argument.