The P bomb

Post Reply New Topic

Investigating the edge of ethics. Probing the existence of free will. Exposing/repeating the mistakes of human history.

Suppose a warring nation(A), created a P bomb (Positive bomb). A chemical weapon that, when used, made their enemies(B) feel very positive toward them(A), putting an end to all hostilities and furthermore making the inhabitants of nation B respond favorably towards every idea promoted by nation A. Assume that the P-bomb has no other effects.

Would it or would it not be 'right' to use such a weapon? Why?

Well, it really depends on the reason that A acts. If A is doing so for the good reason then it is good, if they are doing so for the bad reason then it is bad. If we do not postulate our good reason and our bad reason then no codification can be formed. I do not view free will as being by its nature morally important.

AG, I thought you would question if free will actually exists

It easily might not. I don't think I am a fan of free will, but whether true free will exists or does not exist is not important for the question from my perspective because human beings have only known will but not whether it is free or not. You are getting some idea of my posting style though!

I would guess if free will doesn't exist, then it isn't morally important.

It may be that this little scenario isn't actually as interesting to discuss as I might think, but I'd rather not get into a discussion of whether free will exists or doesn't. I put 'right' in quotes to leave it open to each individual to define what is 'right' and then comment on that. I don't intend to pass judgement on what people think is 'right'.

AG, what would you propose as a good reason to use the P bomb and what a bad reason (it might seem obvious what these could be, but I don't want to be biased towards my own estimation)

Essentially, anyone B exposed to the P bomb would become a slave to nation A. I believe slavery is wrong. Therefore, dropping the P bomb would be wrong.

Even if nation A had compassion on the B's and did not go about enslaving them,
forcibly changing a person's psychological processing would be a procedure which violates a person's human rights.
Operating on someone without their consent is wrong, therefore the P bomb is wrong.

Well, even if it does then we would have to make an additional assertion to prove its importance.

Well, good reason? To promote a good end. I'll be honest, if I had the P bomb and a more conventional bomb, then I would use the P bomb without hesitation in any case that I had somebody oppose me, and possibly against people who are neutral to me.... assuming that I believe I represent good. A bad reason to use the P bomb is when one is evil, as to use the P bomb when one is evil is to make your opponents love evil. I would take a stance more related to inner virtue, which I don't think is useful to define in this context.

Well, because these two nations are fighting each other, I'm assuming that innocent people in both countries are dieing over political differences that they might not necessarily agree with.

Although altering a person's freewill is violating their human rights, killing that same person violates just about every right possible, mainly the freedom to life. So in my humble opinion, altering nation B's freewill to create peace is the lesser of two evils. Hell, whoever takes Prozac alters the way they think also, why isn't there a debate about that instead of a hypothetical war?

No one believes that they are evil or represent evil, they only think that of their enemies.

Taking Prozac requires the taker's consent whereas this hypothetical is about altering a person's way of thinking without their consent. It is the same difference between someone going to the doctor in order to have a sterilization procedure to which they have consented and the doctor sterilizing whoever they think to be unfit parents without their consent. One is a violation of human rights and the other is not depending on the context of the procedure.

In principle your P bomb is no different from an ordinary explosive bomb except it doesn't kill people. Any bomb is an instrument to get the receiver to conform to a bomber's will.

It's overriding free will. Of course it's wrong.

All that I meant is that people actually take Prozac, while there is not a single P-bomb in existence. If I was a conspirator I could say that you have no idea of exactly what is in each pill you take and what effects it could have on your mind that aren't listed on the back of the box, but that would be stupid of me.

The alternative is to send soldiers to kill each other in battlefields along with all the other atrocities of war. Which is worse? Of coarse it's better to not do either, war or "P-bombs", but most countries haven't figured that out yet.

So you agree that it is wrong to alter people's minds without their consent. It is just less wrong than actually killing people and, therefore, an acceptable alternative.

Honestly, I don't think that such a thing as the P bomb could ever exist. What is the point of this discussion anyway?

Absolutely correct! And if I was fighting anyone at any time then I would use the P bomb as from a perspective of spreading virtue it spreads my beliefs, from a perspective of maximizing happiness it reduces deaths, from a perspective of maintaining power it increases the amount of labor and possible capital available to me as well as perhaps the number of fighting forces. The P bomb seems superior to conventional weapons assuming it is as easy to use.