The P bomb

Post Reply New Topic

But the P-bomb doesn’t necessarily override free will. Overriding free will means you aren’t allowing people a choice. The P-bomb doesn’t stop people from making a choice. It merely changes which choice they prefer. They are still choosing to agree with you. How do you conclude that what people choose to do under the influence of the P-bomb aren’t true choices?

There must be some criteria to decide whether an action overrides free will or merely influences someone to make a different choice. Otherwise it’s a slippery slope. You could argue that any action that influences people to make a different choice than they would have otherwise is in essence overriding free will. In that case the only moral thing to do is lock yourself away in a closet so you don’t accidentally override someone else’s free will!

Ha! I feel so clever. I beat AwesomellyGlorious to it too.

spdjeanne wrote

As the initiator of the thread I can say that I doubt if one exists now, but, to me it is not inconceivable that one might be created sometime in the future. Some of the concepts that seemed interesting to me when I started the thread were:

P bomb (Prozac bomb) I didn't mention this initially, because I don't want to offend anyone on medication (I take some myself). However, its clear that our medical science is moving in the direction of chemically controlling peoples feelings (maybe even wills). While I would imagine such chemical capabilities (drugs) have existed in the past, I doubt that so many individuals would choose to use the previous drugs as choose to use the current medications. However, I would suspect that if the government said everyone had to take a medication that made them more happy or open to suggestion, most people wouldn't like that.

P bomb (Propaganda bomb) Of course we use propaganda now in war. I heard an interview with a commander in the Iraq war saying that we weren't making as effective use of the web in conducting propaganda. We also use propaganda within our own nation / society (its known as advertising). I might postulate that such methods actually end up altering the brain chemistry of those who are exposed to them, to a lesser or greater effect.

The rational for using weaponry represents some subset of the rational for how we deem it right to treat others or what is right in others treatment of us. I would admit that it represents an extreme case.

Interestingly enough, as I suspected, some of the rational that people have used supporting the use of the P bomb is similar to those who chose to use the A bomb. Granted in that case there was a loss of life, but the rational was that that loss was significantly less than what would have been incurred should it not have been used.

I guess I didn't connect the use of drugs and/or propaganda as equivalent to the P bomb since in the original hypothetical scenario, it seems that the P bomb is 100% effective whereas drugs and propaganda are not.

Giving a society as a whole one type of mood altering drug will not have the P bomb effect because not every individual reacts the same way to the same drug. Some people react rather poorly to certain drugs which is why doctors work so hard to get each individual's cocktail just right. Also, although it might be possible to alter someone's mood with a drug, I don't see how it is thereby possible to specify the subject of that person's good mood. I highly doubt giving everyone one type of drug would have the P bomb effect.

Propaganda is more likely to have something like a P bomb effect, but it is very doubtable that it could be 100% effective. Propaganda is basically advertising for reality, and just like any other advertisement, the person has no obligation to buy the product. In fact, it seems like the more advertising/propaganda to which we are exposed the more discerning we become about it and the less effective it becomes.