Can you force a person to be good? (Thought experiment)

[The Engineer]

I'm bored, so I decided to post a little thought experiment.

Lets say you have a sociopathic, sadistic mass murderer (let's call him Peter) and a machine that could turn him into an empathic good guy. I'm not merely talking about forcing him to do good, as was the case in A Clockwork Orange. I'm talking about pulling a switch and turning Peter into an honestly decent person.

Would you pull the switch? Do you think Peter would remain the same person if you did so? Would you still send him into prison, or do you think it would absolve him of his guilt? Most importantly, would you regard Peter as a moral person, even though he didn't decide to be one?

 

[The Engineer]

All problems can be solved by taking a stick and beating things with it.

Come back once you've managed our financial crisis and abolished worldwide hunger.

 

[jayem]

If I could turn on the conscience circuits in the brain of someone in whom they were deactivated, then I would absolutely do it. Everyone should have a functional conscience. Persons without it are dangerous. This wouldn't absolve guilt for what he did earlier. He still needs to make restitution as much as possible. He should be kept incarcerated under strict supervision. And he should be put to work with all his earnings going into a victim's compensation fund.

 

[Phileas]

Of course. It's pretty much what we do with children everyday through a combination of threats, stories and bribes. Although having said that it never entirely works so I reverse my conclusion. No, it's not.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Of course. It's pretty much what we do with children everyday through a combination of threats, stories and bribes. Although having said that it never entirely works so I reverse my conclusion. No, it's not.

I think the point of the OP is to consider if we could change the person without a conditioning process.

WRT the OP:
I might pull the switch. Some of the questions to wrestle with would be: Could we do so without changing his sense of self? Could we do and remove memories of guilt? When sense of self would the person have after the process?

If the person on the other side of the process had a whole sense of self complete with memory of a past that allowed a sense of place in the world and no sense of guilt, I would definitely pull the switch.

If the process created a shell of a human, I would not.

I don't know where in the continuum the line would be drawn.

 

[bling]

I think we are talking about two different people.

 

[The Engineer]

If I could turn on the conscience circuits in the brain of someone in whom they were deactivated, then I would absolutely do it. Everyone should have a functional conscience. Persons without it are dangerous.

Persons with a conscience can be dangerous, too. Although probably not as dangerous as full-blown sociopaths.

This wouldn't absolve guilt for what he did earlier.

Why not? If he doesn't exist, or rather, if the parts of him that were responsible for his crimes don't exist anymore, then why punish him? In the end, you would punish a perfectly decent person for the crimes of a person that doesn't exist anymore.

He still needs to make restitution as much as possible.

For crimes he didn't commit, not in his current form at least?

He should be kept incarcerated under strict supervision.

So you would incarcerate a good person?

And he should be put to work with all his earnings going into a victim's compensation fund.

And use good people as forced laborers?

 

[Paradoxum]

I might pull the switch. I don't know if it would change Peter into a different person, but even if it did, I don't consider this quite the same as the death penalty. Alot of Peter would still remain, but his personality would likely change alot. Somewhat similarly to a radical conversion experience. Perhaps there is no clear distinction between whether the person is Peter or not, rather it is a matter of degree. He would at least seem to be the same person as much as someone with a brain degenerating disease.

Would I send him to prison? Well he isn't a danger. I'm not particular sure what the point of punitive justice is, though it might feel good for the victim. Peter could pay back society much more effectively outside of prison.

I find it hard to blame new Peter for what old Peter did. I can quite imagine Peter being just as disgusted as anyone else and might feel that he had been over taken by a kind of insanity. That some genetic disease cause him to do what he did and therefore he can't be blamed now he is healed. I would probably consider new Peter a moral person for these reasons and that he should be considered absolved of guilt.

To pull the switch is to heal Peter of a genetic disease.

All problems can be solved by taking a stick and beating things with it.

I like this reply too.

 

[Buy Bologna]

Haven't you ever read the old testament.

Of course you can force a person to be good.

Be good or die.

 

[quatona]

I'm bored, so I decided to post a little thought experiment.

Lets say you have a sociopathic, sadistic mass murderer (let's call him Peter) and a machine that could turn him into an empathic good guy. I'm not merely talking about forcing him to do good, as was the case in A Clockwork Orange. I'm talking about pulling a switch and turning Peter into an honestly decent person. Would you pull the switch?

That would depend on a couple of things (and even if they are answered, I´m not sure I could conclusively say what I´d do).
1. Does Peter agree?
2. How does that method work? What in Peter does it change, what exactly does it manipulate? What are the mechanisms?
3. What, besides becoming a "decent" person, are the effects on Peter? What about his memory? How does he, in his self-perception, relate to himself before the change?

Do you think Peter would remain the same person if you did so?

What we think of as a person changes from every second to the next, anyway, though not always as dramtically as in your scenario. "Person"(or "self", "me") is a very doubtful concept.

Would you still send him into prison, or do you think it would absolve him of his guilt?

The reason I would send someone to prison isn´t about dealing with "guilt". So no.

Most importantly, would you regard Peter as a moral person, even though he didn't decide to be one?

Well, the fact that an attitude can be changed simply "pulling a switch" seems to suggest that a person doesn´t decide who, what and how to be, in the first place.
Apart from that, I don´t see much good coming from judging an entire person "moral/immoral" anyway.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Would you pull the switch?

No, because that would be like killing him.

Do you think Peter would remain the same person if you did so?

No, he would be Peter2 now.

Would you still send him into prison, or do you think it would absolve him of his guilt?

No, I would not send him to prison since he is Peter2 now.

Most importantly, would you regard Peter as a moral person, even though he didn't decide to be one?

Yes, Peter2 may very well be a moral person.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[jayem]

Why not? If he doesn't exist, or rather, if the parts of him that were responsible for his crimes don't exist anymore, then why punish him? In the end, you would punish a perfectly decent person for the crimes of a person that doesn't exist anymore.

Our laws allow for remission of criminal penalities. I'm assuming he was convicted of crimes and is serving a sentence. If he's eligible for parole, then he can claim before the parole board that he is now a changed person and is no longer a danger to society. If he's not eligible for parole, he can petition his governor for a commutation. Or maybe even a pardon. But until then, he has a sentence to serve.

And here's an analogy re. financial responsibility: I have a seizure while driving. I lose control of my car and hit another driver head on. He suffers a catastrophic neck injury and is permanently paralyzed. It turns out my seizures can be totally controlled with medication. The fact that a medical condition, which is now resolved, caused a serious injury doesn't absolve me of responsibility. I will still have to pay damages.

 

[variant]

Would you pull the switch?

Yes

Do you think Peter would remain the same person if you did so?

No, that's why I would pull the switch.

Would you still send him into prison, or do you think it would absolve him of his guilt?

Perhaps he could be rehabilitated under guidance.

Most importantly, would you regard Peter as a moral person, even though he didn't decide to be one?

Yes. Morality is about what you do.

Perhaps given the opportunity to pull such a switch the person might do it themselves.

Would you pull a switch that would make you more moral?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Would you pull a switch that would make you more moral?

No, I wouldn't. It would break the continuity of my own pattern of efforts to become more moral. It would be like a kind of suicide.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Genersis]

No.
It has too many variables.
Not to mention how you're forcefully changing how a person thinks and feels...that just feels so wrong...

 

[variant]

No, I wouldn't. It would break the continuity of my own pattern of efforts to become more moral. It would be like a kind of suicide.


eudaimonia,

Mark

What if you saw your efforts as a failure?

Much like a sociopath or psychopath might want to be moral but not understand how.

In this case it would be more like giving someone a tool they did not have access to (the empathy) and allowing them to use it.

 

[bling]

Our laws allow for remission of criminal penalities. I'm assuming he was convicted of crimes and is serving a sentence. If he's eligible for parole, then he can claim before the parole board that he is now a changed person and is no longer a danger to society. If he's not eligible for parole, he can petition his governor for a commutation. Or maybe even a pardon. But until then, he has a sentence to serve.

is our law perfectly fair and just? The Bible talks about what the apostle Paul did before his conversion and after his conversion, but I do not feel he should "pay" for the murders he committed before his conversion?

And here's an analogy re. financial responsibility: I have a seizure while driving. I lose control of my car and hit another driver head on. He suffers a catastrophic neck injury and is permanently paralyzed. It turns out my seizures can be totally controlled with medication. The fact that a medical condition, which is now resolved, caused a serious injury doesn't absolve me of responsibility. I will still have to pay damages.

Look financial responsibility applies to you, even if it is a totally innocent accident (an act of God). If you have insurance the insurance will pay, if you do not have insurance or enough insurance that was you personal decision and you are at least partially self insured.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What if you saw your efforts as a failure?

Much like a sociopath or psychopath might want to be moral but not understand how.

In this case it would be more like giving someone a tool they did not have access to (the empathy) and allowing them to use it.

Then it would be like a decision to commit suicide. If I were desperate enough, then perhaps I would consider it.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Crandaddy]

Would you pull the switch?

Assuming that Peter is morally competent--that he truly incurs the guilt of his deeds--then no, I would not. Peter is not ill. He does not need some sort of medical treatment. Peter is what he has chosen to become, and he should have to live with the consequences, including his own callous conscience and atrophied/ill-developed moral sensibilities. He is still free to repent of his crimes even without the magic empathy machine.

Do you think Peter would remain the same person if you did so?

I will say that I cannot see a sufficiently good reason to say that he would not be the same person. That being the case, I think it would be plausible to say that he would be the same person.

Would you still send him into prison, or do you think it would absolve him of his guilt?

Well, I wouldn't pull the switch in the first place, but if someone else were to do it, the treatment by itself wouldn't absolve his guilt (assuming he's the same person). He would still have to be truly sorry for what he's done (of course, this would be much easier with his radically altered disposition).

As for whether or not he should go to prison, I should say, first of all, that the right purpose of penal incarceration is not the absolution of guilt, but rather:

1) the protection of society from dangerous individuals,

2) the positive reformation of vicious character, and

3) the punishment of wrongdoers in proportion not exceeding the severity of their offenses because such punishment is justly due them in a lex talionis fashion.

Of these three conditions, I would say that only 3 is, by itself, both necessary and sufficient for the just penal incarceration of a wrongdoer. The other two are important, but they're neither necessary nor sufficient, neither by themselves, nor jointly.

So, while it wouldn't absolve his guilt, Peter may justly be incarcerated for his crimes even after his treatment. I will say, however, that it is not always and in every case meet and right that we should give a man precisely his just due. There is such a thing as mercy, and we would be very unwise to give it no heed. Therefore, since after his treatment, Peter fails to meet either of the other two conditions, I would say we should probably yield to mercy (assuming he does express sorrow and regret over his crimes) and set him loose.

Most importantly, would you regard Peter as a moral person, even though he didn't decide to be one?

He would continue to be a guilty person until he is sincerely sorry for what he's done, and may still justly be regarded guilty until he believably expresses his sorrow and regret.

The real injustice, it seems to me, would be to give him a decent, moral disposition when he's done nothing to earn it. It would be an offense against his free will. We are--and ought to be--who we choose to be by the choices we make throughout our lives. No one has a right to take that away from us. In short, then, a moral disposition may be artificially imposed upon Peter, but doing so would be very unjust to him.

 

[Crandaddy]

As for whether or not he should go to prison, I should say, first of all, that the right purpose of penal incarceration is not the absolution of guilt, but rather:

1) the protection of society from dangerous individuals,

2) the positive reformation of vicious character, and

3) the punishment of wrongdoers in proportion not exceeding the severity of their offenses because such punishment is justly due them in a lex talionis fashion.

Of these three conditions, I would say that only 3 is, by itself, both necessary and sufficient for the just penal incarceration of a wrongdoer. The other two are important, but they're neither necessary nor sufficient, neither by themselves, nor jointly.

So, while it wouldn't absolve his guilt, Peter may justly be incarcerated for his crimes even after his treatment. I will say, however, that it is not always and in every case meet and right that we should give a man precisely his just due. There is such a thing as mercy, and we would be very unwise to give it no heed. Therefore, since after his treatment, Peter fails to meet either of the other two conditions, I would say we should probably yield to mercy (assuming he does express sorrow and regret over his crimes) and set him loose.

Must have been half asleep when I wrote this. There's actually a fourth condition that would change matters significantly, namely:

4) the deterrent of would-be offenders.

Like the first two conditions, it's neither necessary nor sufficient for just penal incarceration, neither by itself, nor jointly with either or both of the first two, but it might serve as a sufficient reason to go ahead and punish Peter, rather than set him loose.

The reason is that would-be offenders might think they can go ahead and offend, and that they would just be let off the hook scot-free if they undergo the empathy machine procedure. Going ahead and punishing Peter would show them that they would not.