Morality of mind control…

[Reynard]

Game of Thrones spoilers:

Spoiler

One of the main characters in Game of Thrones is Bran Stark, who as a child in the first episode was pushed from a high tower leading to his legs being permanently useless. A simple-minded but very large and strong servant, Hodor, is assigned as his assistant, carrying him from place to place. Hodor has some sort of mental disability, and the only word he can say is "Hodor" so that's what everyone calls him rather than his given name, Wylls.
It also turns out that Bran is a Warg, a person who can do various mind shenanigans. Untrained, this mostly leads to weird dreams as his mind is projected into various animals and he experiences things from their perspective. He gradually learns to use these abilities more actively even if he doesn't fully understand them. These abilities can also sometimes transcend time and space, so he can warg into someone distant and/or in the past and experience things as if he were there.
At some point, Bran, Hodor, and some others are hiding in some underground tunnels as they are pursued by zombies. Hodor is trying to keep the zombies out by blocking the door to their hiding place, but he starts to falter. Bran then wargs into Hodor, forcing him to keep Holding the Door, and his untrained mental powers travel back in time to young Wylls, severely damaging his mind and making him unable to say anything other than "Hodor", which is short for "Hold the Door".

Did you really just spoiler block a decade old story point?

 

[Reynard]

I'm up for "The Jedi were the real baddies: 14 reasons why I'm Pro-Empire" whenever you want to. But it would probably need to be a separate thread.

And undoubtedly going to break site rules.

Andor 4ever.

 

[Morrus]

I would define mind control by its very nature as being coercive and unwanted by the recipient.

But that isn’t the definition of it. It’s just your definition of it. It makes no sense—if I agree to mind control, it’s not mind control? If I agree to be poisoned it’s not poison? If I agree to a nice cake it’s not a nice cake? My wanting it or not doesn’t redefine reality.

 

[jian]

But that isn’t the definition of it. It’s just your definition of it. It makes no sense—if I agree to mind control, it’s not mind control? If I agree to be poisoned it’s not poison? If I agree to a nice cake it’s not a nice cake? My wanting it or not doesn’t redefine reality.

If you take a drug in full understanding of its effects and with full consent hoping for it to affect you, then it’s a drug, not a poison. If someone gives you a drug without your knowledge and consent, as an assault on you, it’s a poison. That’s the medical definition. If I as a doctor help you do the former, I’m doing my job. If I do the latter, I’m committing assault and am rather likely to get arrested and struck off. About the only exception to this distinction is euthanasia, and only because euthanasia is illegal in some jurisdictions. My intentions and your knowledge make all the difference before the GMC and in a court of law.

 

[kermit4karate]

What we have here is a philosophical impasse. I don't believe in necessary evils. At least not in a moral sense. I agree it's the circumstances that matter when calculating the morality of an action. Mind controlling someone to prevent deaths isn't merely morally acceptable it's morally good. Again, depending on the circumstances.


Self defense is not evil. If someone threatens to stick a knife in me then knocking their teeth out in response is a moral good. It's not even a little bit evil.

How far do we want to take this? If I make a coherent set of arguments supporting my conclusion and persuade you to change your mind, have I modified your free will?

Bravo! Excellent points!

 

[Morrus]

If you take a drug in full understanding of its effects and with full consent hoping for it to affect you, then it’s a drug, not a poison.

So if I tell you I want you to poison me to death with a bottle of poison marked with a skull and crossbones which contains poison and has a label on it saying 'poison', and you do so, it isn't poison? But if you feed me cake without my consent it is a poison? Nicotine, consensually smoked in a cigarette, is not a poison?

That’s the medical definition.

Are you sure?

I just looked it up and it said "A poison is any substance that causes harm, injury, or death to a living organism when absorbed, ingested, or inhaled in sufficient quantities." Nothing to do with consent.

That said... who cares? The 'medical definition' (if one can agree on what that is, and I image every medical authority on the planet has its own definition) is hardly the point here, is it? It's a giant sidetrack on a thread about mind control, which I'm sure there isn't a medical definition of, being fictional and all.

 

[jian]

So if I tell you I want you to poison me to death with a bottle of poison marked with a skull and crossbones which contains poison and has a label on it saying 'poison', and you do so, it isn't poison? But if you feed me cake without my consent it is a poison? Nicotine, consensually smoked in a cigarette, is not a poison?

Are you sure?

I just looked it up and it said "A poison is any substance that causes harm, injury, or death to a living organism when absorbed, ingested, or inhaled in sufficient quantities." Nothing to do with consent.

That said... who cares? The 'medical definition' (if one can agree on what that is, and I image every medical authority on the planet has its own definition) is hardly the point here, is it? It's a giant sidetrack on a thread about mind control, which I'm sure there isn't a medical definition of, being fictional and all.

Yes, I’m sure. The distinction I just made is very clear and is morally, ethically, legally, and professionally essential. It’s one I work with every day. If you want to kill yourself, I’m not currently legally permitted to help you, but I would be in some jurisdictions.

Do we make the same distinction in the definition of mind control? Well, that’s up to us individually, as you say, since our reality has no need for a legal definition of mind control. But the distinction is important for this thread, since if you include “telepathic psychotherapy” in your definition of mind control, I’d argue the debate becomes meaningless until you take it out again. I strongly suspect any world that does have to have a legal definition of mind control would agree with me.

 

[Morrus]

Yes, I’m sure. The distinction I just made is very clear and is morally, ethically, legally, and professionally essential. It’s one I work with every day. If you want to kill yourself, I’m not currently legally permitted to help you, but I would be in some jurisdictions.

The definition of 'poison' is totally a sidetrack, and I regret saying the word as it's turning into a threadjack. That said, I am still interested in the source of this definition. You say you're doctor, and you 'work with' this definition every day. No definition I've seen of it involves consent. I'm genuinely curious--and I'm not trying to gotcha you; if you show me a medical definition, I'm happy to accept that's one definition of the word, though of course not the only definition--but what is the exact definition and source you happen to work with?

Do we make the same distinction in the definition of mind control? Well, that’s up to us individually, as you say, since our reality has no need for a legal definition of mind control. But the distinction is important for this thread, since if you include “telepathic psychotherapy” in your definition of mind control, I’d argue the debate becomes meaningless until you take it out again. I strongly suspect any world that does have to have a legal definition of mind control would agree with me.

We don't have to have a legal definition of mind control, or magic, or faries, because these things do not exist. All we can do is wax lyrical and talk nonsense.

 

[Cadence]

Is exorcism mentally controlling/overriding the possessing spirit?

 

[jian]

The definition of 'poison' is totally a sidetrack, and I regret saying the word as it's turning into a threadjack. That said, I am still interested in the source of this definition. You say you're doctor, and you 'work with' this definition every day. No definition I've seen of it involves consent. I'm genuinely curious--and I'm not trying to gotcha you; if you show me a medical definition, I'm happy to accept that's one definition of the word, though of course not the only definition--but what is the exact definition and source you happen to work with?

Duties of a Doctor, GMC, I think the 2002 version? I read it through when I qualified in 2003. It’s quite lengthy and explains that all drugs are poisons; all medication is potentially harmful if given inappropriately or to excess. When it is given appropriately with the patient’s full informed consent, it is a drug; when it is given without that consent for whatever reason by a doctor, it is a poison and the act of giving it is potentially legally interpretable as assault.

This is the case for any intervention or procedure; surgery (or even defibrillation) without consent is certainly assault and has to be appropriate and ethically and legally defensible (e.g. performed on an unconscious patient without their consent in order to save their life). Such is the established precedent for most such procedures that they would have a hard time suing you even if they survived but didn’t want to have. If they are awake and do not give their consent, even if it would save their life or is otherwise beneficial in your opinion, such as giving a blood transfusion to a Jehovah’s Witness without their consent, it is assault until proven otherwise (so you don’t do it).