Wow this brings back memories.
Back when I was in junior high, or middle school or whatever we were talking about Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World".
The teacher presented us with a setting that from the start mind controlled people to be happy with the work they were grown for (as far as I remember they were grown in tubes for various tasks).
She started telling us about how bad this was, and so on, but there were two brats that argued against it.
Those brats were me and another classmate of mine. We argued that since the people are happy with what they do, that it was fine. The people weren't being mistreated, they weren't miserable, on the contrary they were happy to do their social roles.
Eventually we talked the teacher into a corner trying to explain why this was bad, and she couldn't. She said that that's what she's being paid for to teach us.
The feeling of out-arguing a teacher at 12 years old? Amazing.
Anyway, yeah back then I held happiness above freedom and I still do. I don't want to fuel the moral debate, I just want to state "Wow, it's increadible. I never thought that my way of thinking could be regarded by other people as wrong so strongly." Now that I think about it though, it makes sense for people to not want to be mind controlled under any circumstances. I'm not one of those people, mind, but it's interesting to see the other side of the argument.
Four or so years ago, I too read
Brave New World for English class, and I did a report on it. This was English class in a Norwegian school, mind you, so the teacher was less concerned with shoveling morals and "good christian values" or whatever down our throats, and more concerned with reading comprehension and us grasping the nuances of the language.
I came to the conclusion that while the life in that world seemed very tempting, I would personally find it somewhat stifling in the longer term. Consider also that the alphas, and to a lesser extent betas, were all living it up, while the gammas, deltas and almost subhuman epsilon 'semi-morons' were mutilated in the brainmeats so as to not even have the intellectual capasity for ambition, curiosity or any drive beyond doing their jobs. Switch out gammas and down with robotics, and suddenly it's all better.
Still, I will not claim some moral superiority, or try making an unassailable argument by claiming that OBVIOUSLY true thinkers and intellectuals (and TRUE Scotsmen
) would abhor the world as Huxley described it. Many people would think it an optimal existence, while others would think like me, be neutral on the subject, or reject it due to some other reason. In the end, however, it is a difficult question, and there will never be universal agreement.
The story in this thread is similarly difficult to discuss, as we come back to the value and sanctity of free will, the existence of the same, what constitutes immoral persuasion, and which sets of morals should be used. I will not offer any answers directly, but I do feel the need to make some points on free will and persuasion.
Firstly, whether we have free will or not is an interesting conondrum to philisophize upon, but ultimately it doesn't matter, as a lack of it can't effect our actions further, and either way the complacency inherent in not believing yourself responsible for your actions can be dangerous to yourself and society at large. We should act as if though we have it, and otherwise not agonize over it.
Secondly, persuasion and manipulation is not necessarily bad, just as seduction is not always sleazy. DO NOT attach an ugly word such as rape to every instance where the instigator is proactive instead of standing around like a lemon, waiting for nature to take its course. Rape is a sexual act where liberties are taken with a lack of explicit or implicit consent. Extending the term to cover every action where one part feels, or "should feel", regret in the aftermath is meaningless, and seems to trivialize actual rape.
This is not to say that I agree with the decision to "fix" Victoria, but if I had parents like hers I would fix them in a heartbeat, as their brains were, objectively speaking, defective. The idea that physical scars can and should be healed, except for when they are on the brain, is something I can't quite get behind. If I want to get poetic, I could say that every second I live, I die, and every time i die I am born anew. The brain is not static, and altering a personality in the process of fixing problems is okay, in my opinion. They are no longer the same people as they were, but the people they were kind of sucked. Tomorrow they might be new people once more.
Now, for some thoughts on manipulation the good old fashioned way:
Interpersonal interaction is all about manipulation, be it overt or subtle. Manipulation is by it's very definition to make something happen, or not happen, as the case may be. To go against the natural inclinations of a system, and try to impose your will on something. The natural inclination of the world, if you do not manipulate any aspect of it, is to go on as if you are not there. If you are an objectively good person, however that is decided, you will manipulate the world into an objectively better place, if only by your presence alone.
If I ask my father to pass me the salt by the dinnertable, I am trying to manipulate him by either appealing to ingrained and reflexive responses to such a question, to his conditioning as a part of polite society, to his expectations that I might be more inclined to offer a favour in return in the future, or I'm ruthlessly taking advantage of his altruistic temdencies and love for me as his son. I'm an utter bastard, right? My appeal to all of you is to kindly divorce the word 'manipulation' from 'bad', 'immoral' etc.
Amy's manipulations are at the very least questionable, however, and they are also a case where the slippery slope
fallacy argument might be valid.
If you've slogged through this whole wall of text, I hope you've found something worthwhile, and I would greatly appreciate thoughts and impressions.
