Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,983 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Posted here because some might say its ethically questionable and as a taboo so I would like a constructive discussion on brain surgery to deal with dangerous people. Is it good or bad and would it work out at all?

What are your thoughts on brain surgery to neutralize people who may potentially be a danger to society? For example extreme nationalists such as those who tore apart Yugoslavia in the name of ethnicity? Instead of using methods that some people find morally questionable and may use it to demonize you.

What about brain surgery? That way they still live but their way of thinking has been changed and are neutralized as a threat to society?

Say there are a bunch of really dangerous violent racist-nationalist terrorists or any terrorists, instead of putting them in prison or killing(If rehabilitation does not work), chemical injections, etc. They could be put in a psychiatric institution to have painless brain surgery, shock therapy(If Needed) and etc performed on them. They will then be released to enjoy life as usual and be a productive member of society.

Its the most humane way to deal with dangerous extremists because there would be no physical violence and nobody would even have to die?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,442 Posts
A non-violent option would be to put them in prison. I don't see why such an extreme, invasive and risky option is on the table, and this assumes that virtuous character traits can be constructed via brain surgery at all. This also assumes that non-consensual invasive medical procedures that also carry risks counts as non-violent.
 

·
MOTM November 2013
Joined
·
2,702 Posts
If we ever get to a point where lobotomizing people deemed dangerous is actually a thing, then the people who made it a thing should be the first ones on the list.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Assuming there would be a safe, cheap procedure to eliminate hatred, aggression and sadness from the human psyche, I would support its usage not only on dangerous individuals but on the entire population.
I know there probably are not many who think similarily, but I believe it would eliminate many problems in this world and would gladly be the first to subject myself to such a procedure.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,984 Posts
A non-violent option would be to put them in prison. I don't see why such an extreme, invasive and risky option is on the table, and this assumes that virtuous character traits can be constructed via brain surgery at all. This also assumes that non-consensual invasive medical procedures that also carry risks counts as non-violent.
This.

If we ever get to a point where lobotomizing people deemed dangerous is actually a thing, then the people who made it a thing should be the first ones on the list.
And this.

Basically just no. I have no idea how you concluded 'Its the most humane way to deal with dangerous extremists'. Not that I support execution per se, but even a quick execution is more humane than intentionally damaging someone and then forcing them to continue to live.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,053 Posts
If we ever get to a point where lobotomizing people deemed dangerous is actually a thing, then the people who made it a thing should be the first ones on the list.
Yeah...I definitely agree with this statement. As others have said, a quick execution is better than turning an individual into a human vegetable. They may be criminals, but I believe prolonging their punishment as a vegetable is unbelievably cruel...this coming from a usually heartless INTJ :frustrating:.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Spoiler Alert! - Mass Effect Series

I'm insanely nerdy to use this, but here goes - In Mass Effect 2 you are presented with a similar decision in Legion's Loyalty quest. You can either choose to rewrite the "Heretic" programs, making them agree with the geth, or destroy them permanently. Should you rewrite the "Heretics," your ME3 score is boosted since the Geth have more programs, rather than destroying them. This is the only game choice to ever make me think for an extended period of time about the implications of it.

Logically speaking, it is better to "rewrite" (preform surgery on) the "heretics" (dangerous humans), since it increases the race's success. More hands and minds working on our projects increase our prosperity. Therefore, it must be the right choice mathematically, right?

But emotionally speaking, you are changing the fundamental functions of a sentient without their permission. This is wrong to many people on many levels for many reasons. Furthermore, the outcry from these people may offset the added productivity to where it becomes inefficient. Also, if it is moral to do so to the "heretics" who, at a basic level, simply disagree with you, what's to stop another from doing the same to you? After all, from their view, not only are you wrong, but you also represent a threat to society.

It's a hard question to mull over entirely. In the game, I always chose to rewrite the heretics. In the situation, they were insane cultists who threatened a much larger majority.

Do the ends justify the means? I don't believe most humans are built to compute these questions. As such, we must decide on a communal basis. But we are built to follow leaders when deciding in groups, so individuals hold the power over the situation, regardless of whether they are capable of of computing it or not.

Media List for the topic:
Psycho-Pass (Anime)
Dragon Age - Tranquil (Wikis)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,651 Posts
Sure, an elective surgical option to deal with those criminals who choose it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
277 Posts
I think it's not good, so a big definite NO. Besides how horrible it would be to do that to someone, even a criminal, imagine what that type of power in the hands of the government could do if it were used wrong. It's not like you could reverse the affects. It's too permanent and risky. I opt for something like rehabilitation. Like @Dao said, it assumes that a person would just gain some sort of high moral standards after the surgery. I think our morals are made from experiences that shape our idea or right and wrong. These criminals didn't have that kind of life that would provide them with situations to grow from in goods ways. I'm sure there's some sort of program that could do this that doesn't involve surgery or messing with the person's brain.
 

·
MOTM Feb 2016
Joined
·
10,008 Posts
Posted here because some might say its ethically questionable and as a taboo so I would like a constructive discussion on brain surgery to deal with dangerous people. Is it good or bad and would it work out at all?

What are your thoughts on brain surgery to neutralize people who may potentially be a danger to society? For example extreme nationalists such as those who tore apart Yugoslavia in the name of ethnicity? Instead of using methods that some people find morally questionable and may use it to demonize you.

What about brain surgery? That way they still live but their way of thinking has been changed and are neutralized as a threat to society?

Say there are a bunch of really dangerous violent racist-nationalist terrorists or any terrorists, instead of putting them in prison or killing(If rehabilitation does not work), chemical injections, etc. They could be put in a psychiatric institution to have painless brain surgery, shock therapy(If Needed) and etc performed on them. They will then be released to enjoy life as usual and be a productive member of society.

Its the most humane way to deal with dangerous extremists because there would be no physical violence and nobody would even have to die?
There are a few concerns I have with this, but I'll initially say that if there were no better alternatives, then I'd be okay with this kind of thing being carried out. What I worry about though is what qualifies as "dangerous", as without very strict regulations, people could have their personalities altered without their will simply because they aren't acceptable to the government. I'd be concerned that with the legalization of such methods, we may devolve into a 1984-esque dystopian society where people who had "unacceptable" ideas, behaviors, thoughts, and so forth would be "corrected". Perhaps this is too much of a slippery-slope kind of worry, but I think without very strict regulation, this could open up the possibility for a lot of abuse. We'd have to be really careful about the technology. I think however, that this still interferes with a person's bodily autonomy and other things which I think we should afford everyone if possible. In my opinion, we should seek to maximize the well-being of everyone as much as we possibly can, regardless of who they are. That is the ideal we should strive for, while also pragmatically neutralizing threats to everyone else. Surgically altering the personalities of people against their will is a violation of bodily autonomy, no matter who they are. As a last resort, I may accept this, but I'd be much more in favor of exiling dangerous individuals or providing them with some means of rehabilitative recourse for their reintroduction into society.

I'd also think that we'd have to develop our understanding and our technologies with neuroscience much more for this to even be viable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,454 Posts
Well... this would be a slippy slope. Everything over time is exploited and then no longer serves its original aim. Eventually the line will become blurred as to what is actually dangerous, what is an danger, and dangerous would be would serves whatever agenda, what is not on my side, what goes against the status quo in time. You'd have to take into account this trend and tendency of the eroding of any form of punish or aid that is implemented, due to the ordinary state of our psychological life, and the general mechanicality and identification we exists in. Eventually it will no longer serve its intended purpose, like every other form of punishment or what have you over time. So you'd have to weigh the pro's and con's, and really ask yourself if you want to invest in a really quick fix solution, which will help one thing by creating many other things in its place.

Also, another point, we can't have a utopia in this world, imo. We are always going to have something that is negative, and dark, and it is always going to be in direct relationship to something that is positive or great. Honestly in my mind the negative serves some purpose, even something as horrible as the terrorist, they exists because something else exists and these people do what they do as it conforms to their concept of good, often a communal one. And everyone in this world is the same way, doing their brand of good -- where as to the terrorist his act of blowing himself up and killing people, or shooting up people, somehow this person feels like, they are expressing their brand of justice, but they skip the whole "brain surgery" to taking your life and inducing fear, that they hope will make people crumble and be or adhere to what they want, an extremist brand of suggestion. So if terrorist are worked on and no longer become such, something else will just take its place, and it will get around this whole brain surgery problem, and it maybe even worst than the terrorist itself. This just seems how things operate in this world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
592 Posts
Its the most humane way to deal with dangerous extremists because there would be no physical violence and nobody would even have to die?
With your method, this wouldn't stop criminal activity from occurring. First, dangerous people would still have to commit their crimes in order to identify them. Second, you aren't preventing future people from causing the same harm.

This is actually a problem with our current mentality on crime and punishment, it is that we try to fix the current situation instead of preventing future ones.

I say we treat any dangerous extremists like lab rats under constant test and study. We try to evaluate what caused them to be who they are. They are contained so they can't cause any more harm. They are also providing information on how to prevent another psycho from spawning. Heck, I don't even care how you treat them in containment. Just at least let us learn from them, instead of killing/brain-alteration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,137 Posts
i've been working in software qa for far too long to believe in any 'i'll just rip out this function right here . . . ' practices. it always seems like a straightforward fix when you do it, and it's almost always had unforeseen consequences.

i think of the human brain as an ecosystem. there's nothing in it that's inherently 'bad'; everything it comes up with plays some kind of role. so if you pick out one function or pathway and block it, it seems to me like the other bright-but-overly-localized ideas that haven't worked out quite as their inventors expected they would in the global ecosystem. eliminate all the wolves. take rabbits to australia. etc etc.

on the other hand, we already use chemicals to do the same thing. it's just that in theory at least, chemical lobotomies are reversible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,795 Posts
I think at some level this would eventually turn into you don't agree with me so you need to be lobotomized. Probably not a good precedent to set to start physically altering people's brains because they might pose a danger, seems like at the very least the outcome of such alteration would be difficult to predict.

Also this has already been done in the past to some extent and didn't turn out so well, here's a little history lesson on how that can progress. When you have a 12 year old boy being lobotomized because he's defiant well...that just goes to show you how far society takes stuff like this. The Surprising History of the Lobotomy | World of Psychology
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
I say this whenever somebody brings up the death penalty:"Don't encourage the government to implent measures you wouldn't want to be used on you.", for obvious reasons. Same goes for lobotomies.
Everybody is a serial killer waiting to happen, including you. It would be incredibly naïve to deny that and incredibly stupid to assume that you can't go insane or become a wanted criminal. Criminals aren't evil people, they're people liek you and I.

Besides the obvious moral quandaries with introducing a pretty barbaric practice into human society for your false sense of safety; why lobotomize, (or whatever sci-fi surgery is being brought up here)? If a country can't keep its prisoners locked up, it's got some bigger problems to deal with than this. Its not that hard. Lock them into a room and bring them food every day. I don't see that point in neutalizing criminals when all you have to do is feed them and not open the door.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
559 Posts
Slippery slope, yes. When will people like me be lobotomized then?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,914 Posts
Is the OP for real.

Might as well ask, "What are your thoughts on cutting off the hands of criminals? Or how about total immolation of convicted rapists?"

Y'know, like they still do in poverty stricken and socially underdeveloped communities in Africa and South America. And yes I have seen the videos.

Fucking brain surgery, for fucks sake haha. I'd rather not push social evolution backwards any faster, thanks.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top