Morality in a Pill?
The Guardian has an article looking at a new book, Enhancing Human Capacities, which suggests that new drugs may soon enable people to become more moral. As the Guardian reports:
A pill to enhance moral behaviour, a treatment for racist thoughts, a therapy to increase your empathy for people in other countries - these may sound like the stuff of science fiction but with medicine getting closer to altering our moral state, society should be preparing for the consequences, according to a book that reviews scientific developments in the field….
The field is in its infancy, but "it's very far from being science fiction", said Dr Guy Kahane, deputy director of the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics and a Wellcome Trust biomedical ethics award winner.
"Science has ignored the question of moral improvement so far, but it is now becoming a big debate," he said. "There is already a growing body of research you can describe in these terms. Studies show that certain drugs affect the ways people respond to moral dilemmas by increasing their sense of empathy, group affiliation and by reducing aggression." …
But would pharmacologically-induced altruism, for example, amount to genuine moral behaviour? Guy Kahane, deputy director of the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics and a Wellcome Trust biomedical ethics award winner, said: "We can change people's emotional responses but quite whether that improves their moral behaviour is not something science can answer."
He also admitted that it was unlikely people would "rush to take a pill that would make them morally better.
"Becoming more trusting, nicer, less aggressive and less violent can make you more vulnerable to exploitation," he said. "On the other hand, it could improve your relationships or help your career."
As it happens I will be giving a talk at the Stuck with Virtue conference at Berry College in Georgia later this week on the topic human enhancement. One of the chief concerns of the organizers is whether or not enhancements will boost virtues or undermine them. I argue in my conference paper that enhancing capacities such as intelligence, memory, and practical reasoning will tend to enable people to practice virtue more easily. People will likely choose enhancements that increase cooperation:
While competition certainly plays a role in underwriting success in society and the economy, most success is achieved through cooperation – the dominant dynamic in truly modern societies is win/win, not win/lose.
So in the future people in the pursuit of non-zero sum social and economic relations are likely to choose the sorts of intellectual and emotional enhancements that boost their ability to cooperate more effectively with others, e.g., increased empathy, greater practical reason. Of course, people in the future will have to be on guard against any still deluded folks who think that free riding might work, but there may well be an app for that – the increasingly transparent society.
With regard to the idea of using drugs to moderate criminality, I warned against the the therapeutic state in my 2005 column, Prozac Justice.
Hat tip to frequent H&R commenter SugarFree.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Fucking drugs, how do they work?
[Serenity reference]
[Clockwork Orange reference]
[Equilibrium reference]
I don't see how a hat tip to you doesn't include the word "disturbing."
I'm just miffed I didn't get "beloved."
Which drug created that sensation in you?
What, no love for Brave New World?
"I'm just one man, Marge."
This will probably end badly like the mid-20th century lobotomy stuff.
Otto: Lobotomy? Isn't that for loonies?
Parnell: Not at all. Friend of mine had one. Designer of the neutron bomb. You ever hear of the neutron bomb? Destroys people--leaves buildings standing. Fits in a suitcase. It's so small, no one knows it's there until--BLAMMO. Eyes melt, skin explodes, everybody dead. So immoral, working on the thing can drive you mad. That's what happened to this friend of mine. So he had a lobotomy. Now he's well again.
That's insane. Any moral person doesn't need the pill and the dominant strategy for any neer-do-well is to not take the pill so as to more easily be able to prey on the good will of the ultra moral. This reeks of coercion, for their own good, of course.
"Cat on my head!
Cat on my head!"
Want to know what this plan doesn't sound like?
Every science fiction dystopia ever!
Can morality come from an action that is intensely immoral?
"Our Nazi scientists are better than their Nazi scientists!"
Sure, as long as we're starving the Ukraine.
Mmmm... Ukraine...
I'd eat her if my government was starving me.
Unlike persons associated with The Ohio State University, Ukrainians prefer the name without the article.
Ohio State on the what now?
Sorry, you misused the patented and trademarked article. That's legally treason under Ohio law.
The only Ohio law I recognize is the one that compels me to root for the OSU football team. The rest is null and void as far as I'm concerned, especially the law that makes it illegal to destroy the Cleveland Heights police department's cars. Fucking thieves, the lot of them.
Speaking of the "The", why isn't it TOSU instead of OSU? Seems inconsistent to me.
In Japanese, tosu means "to toss" or "to stake; to risk; to bet; to wager." In other words, to throw your money away.
That's a pretty excellent word for a THE state party THE school.
True. Maybe t-shirts and other merchandise could be sold. Money made.
It wouldn't be a soma thread without ProLib taking shots at OSU. Bastage.
I only do so out of love for my former co-workers at Ohio State.
I see some Ahia State fans write tOSU.
Yeah. It's not like we don't poke fun at ourselves and the University. Figures that SEC-types would think that it actually made us sad.
Nice try, but I worked there. Some people take the "The" very, very seriously.
I remember when they first started pushing it. My brother was going to school there. Just about everyone took it lightly.
Some people take it ever-so seriously. Oh well.
It's the problem with having a large school. Even a small percentage of crazies can end up tainting the rest of the population.
I remember Joey Galloway heavily emphasizing the "The" in his introduction before a Bucs game and thinking "as opposed to the other Ohio State University"?
If it makes you feel any better, I think that's nothing compared to the University of Miami, which tries to make up for the utterly idiotic "U" on the side of its helmets by referring to the school as "The U." The school is fucking retarded.
I think Woody Hayes took things pretty seriously but he never referred to it as "the". Also, didn't this start in response to The University [of Miami] durhurricanes?
I think the "The" is a relatively recent thing. It was in place when I worked there, back in the late 90s, but I don't think it goes back into the Hayes era. I could be wrong about that, but that's my impression.
I should hope that OSU wouldn't do anything in response to UM's actions, because that would be silly. A school with only a U on the side of its helmet clearly does not need to be taken seriously.
Late '80s/early '90s, I think.
That sound you hear from the UK is Huxley turning over in his grave.
Hat tip to frequent H&R commenter SugarFree.
Who?
He's some sockpuppet. Ignore it. It thrives on attention.
Meanwhile, the writer of the piece refuses to take credit...
Ah, crap. I could have read it was R Bailey in the conference link...
Hey, guys! Over here! Look at me! LOOK AT ME!
You loom large.
Don't worry: like a vampire it has a deadly weakness to normal human foods.
If I'm not legally allowed to take Ecstacy, I doubt this will be legal.
I hear all the social control types fapping in unison to this. Blech. Based on what passes for moral at most Oxford, I'll stay me.
They could at least combine it with Oxycodone...
A pill that turns people into pussies?
new drugs may soon enable people to become more moral.
What a waste of time. This is why we have laws! I would also prefer the word "force" instead of "enable."
Wait, I thought it was why we have religion?
Didn't the movie "Serenity" pretty much cover this issue?
Anyway, assuming these drugs do become a reality: If the Government compels people to take them or administers them covertly, that's morally wrong and should be resisted. If taking them is voluntary, only Progressives and other collectivists will do so. Conservatives, libertarians, and anyone else with even a passing respect for the individual will refuse. I can't imagine what that situation would be like.
"Conservatives, libertarians, and anyone else with even a passing respect for the individual will refuse. I can't imagine what that situation would be like."
Sorry, but I don't understand why that would be the case. Surely the libertarian drive to give people the freedom to use their property and bodies should extend to their minds? If I feel that I too often react aggressively, why would I have to be a collectivist to let a product change my neurochemistry in the way I want? Why should I be happy with the mind blind evolution gave me if there are aspects of it I would like to change?
The people comparing voluntary "morality pills" to Serenity is like the people comparing liberal eugenics with Nazism. Freedom good, force bad.
(I apologize in advance for any potential language problems that might pop up, English isn't my first language. Well, my name would tell you that. Duh.)
Um, I'm not sure the whole eugenics movement is the go-to reference you want to give to Americans, given our country's history with with it.
I'm breeding a superior race in my basement. Are you telling me that's illegal now? Since when?
What I meant was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_eugenics
you could use the term transhumanism. This is, afterall, basic transhumanism.
Check out HPLUS
Probably for a similar reason that many libertarians believe that one cannot sign a contract allowing someone complete sovereignty over his life (i.e., voluntary slavery).
Since when have libertarians believed in the concept of "unconscionability" when it comes to any document called a contract?
(Pam Geller excepted, of course)
"Sorry, but I don't understand why that would be the case. Surely the libertarian drive to give people the freedom to use their property and bodies should extend to their minds?"
I don't think he was necessarily saying that libertarians would fight a voluntary regime of such pills (although some of the more paranoid might see such a measure as necessary for preventing a future involuntary use), but that that they would be, due to personality tendencies, disinclined to be medicated into more passively accepting collectivist attitudes.
Might be true, but I'd like to think that libertarians are a diverse lot whose one uniting characteristic is an unwillingness to force others to do as we want. I am, for example, a non-drinker, non-smoker and, for ethical reasons, a vegetarian. Does that mean I'm not a "real" libertarian?
Do you consider yourself morally defective?
Sometimes I'm too aggressive, distrustful or non-empathetic. If you want to call that "morally defective" or not is up to you, but if you do, yes I sometimes am.
Eh. I still imagine you're in the minority among libertarians (not in terms of having flaws, but in terms of trusting medicine to address them), but I take your point.
Still, the Guardian's insistence on assuming that their modern left-liberal morality is some sort of absolute is both disturbing and a little sad -- if you can create a pill that cures racism, you can probably also create a pill that cures homosexuality. Some people would call that "moral" too. I wonder how the Guardian would feel about the "human enhancement" of closeted, conservative gays medicating their impulses.
Being empathetic isn't all it's cracked up to be. Rational is much preferred to empathetic in libertarian circles.
Of course, the movie didn't get into the gas that made people passive as the immoral part, it was the fact that some turned into the hyperaggressive Reavers that killed everyone on the planet and the inevitable government coverup that followed.
It sort of suggested that the utopians' tendency to view other people as something to fix rather than equal moral agents was a moral failing; the fact that it lead to great tragedy made it much worse, of course, but the first failure was the decision to medicate.
Does it bother anyone else that several prog groups use "Brave New X" terminology for themselves, apparently unironically? I guess "1984 was a warning, not an instruction manual" needs to be updated.
The Reavers didn't kill everybody on Miranda. Most of the bodies the Serenity crew discovered simply quit wanting to live.
And it still won't be as safe as marijuana
Obviously, these pills should be supplied to hot nubile young women, so that they desire older, fatter, uglier, poorer men as sex partners, because that is much more noble than wanting muscular, handsome, big pen*sed, rich young men.
I eagerly await this breakthrough technology...that will improve my life.
Hopefully, it will not have anyuntoward side effects like making men want to have sex with old fat ugly women, cause that is just crazy.
Why not give old men 2 carat diamonds to accomplish this.
Whoa, a slam on Rather out of nowhere!
a treatment for racist thoughts,
I thought that's what Freshman Orientation was.
It was the PAX. We put it in the air supply...
I like how being more vulnerable to exploitation apparently improves your career and relationships.
Free will = SOMALIAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
On a boating forum I frequent, someone posted about their state passing a law mandating that people wear PFDs on certain watercraft. A couple people (including me) piped up and decried the law as similar to helmet laws and seatbelt laws - i.e., just another example of the government telling me what to do.
One guy replied as follows - I kid you not, here is his verbatim response:
Why isn't it [i]mmigrating to Cuba?
Sounds like lefties are immigrating. Which is why they like immigration more than the right. I wonder how many people do emigrate from the U.S. to other countries? Can't be too many.
Those who do leave the U.S. and renounce their U.S. citizenship typically do so to avoid U.S. taxation. The U.S. is in the minority (if not actually unique) in that it imposes its income tax on its citizens no matter where they are in the world and no matter where they earned the money. Most other countries tax you only on income earned in that country.
So there are a fair number of U.S. expatriots in Costa Rico and Thailand. Of course, in Thailand, they may be expats for reasons other than or in addition to taxes...
This record here's about twelve years old. Parliament buried it and it stayed buried until River here dug it up. This is what they were afraid she knew. And they were right to fear. There's a universe of folk who're gonna know it, too. Someone *has to* speak for these people.
Y'all got on this boat for different reasons, but y'all come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.
Scientist: I've invented a pill that gives worms to ex-girlfriends.
Don: Uh, right, and what's positive about that?
Scientist: Well, it's a pill that gives worms to ex-girlfriends.
Don: Couldn't it also give worms to ex-boyfriends?
Scientist: This is a drug... for the world... to give worms to ex-girlfriends.
Don: Well, great. Thanks for stopping by.
Scientist: You just don't get it here! Huhoooo!
Morality has nothing to with science.Please some things to parents and schools.No drug can improve the child's moral behaviour.Some things can only be taught by mother and father.
Please leave some things for parents.The world would be too scary with mortality pills.
I'm just relieved that we can all agree on what "moral" means
Okay, SF, help me out here. Larry Niven story: guy quits taking his drugs because his desk runs out, commits crime, flees on ramjet?
that's what this reminds me of, anyway. Just wish I could remember the story.
"Rammer" 1971. Expanded to novel length in 1976's A World Out of Time.
Thanks.
That's not 'Rammer'. Corbell/Corbett was a corpsicle, not a paranoid schiz.
I know that story. He runs out of his anti-psychotic drugs because he was stressed, didn't realize it, goes psycho, kills someone and steals a spaceship and runs away. Don't think it was a ramship--Niven gets rid of those pretty early, but it might've been.
Not Rammer, rather The Ethics of Madness.
The only "morality" pill I could see being popular would be one that hardens willpower. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, and all that.
Since most people trust their own moral compass, any pill that alters people's moral evaluation will almost certainly be a tool of control, not a tool of self-improvement.
I've heard Antabuse described as a chemical willpower substitute by someone on it.
i've heard alcohol referred to in the same way . see: Liquid Courage (tm)
Alcohol might help steel the will against fear of consequence, but it doesn't protect against compulsive behavior or strengthen resolve -- otherwise, alcohol would be the ideal drug for curing alcoholism.
well, alcohol does often strengthen resolve. the problem is it diminishes judgment at the same time. hence, liquid courage, often demonstrated as "bubba, check this out" followed by hilarity/carnage.
I got to write a whole paper on this for a senior level "Food in Literature" class. Many of the "natural supplements" for X promise to substitute for the ability to either put the fork down or get off the interwebz and do.
i hate to get all Clockwork Orange here, but if a moral act is not CHOSEN it ceases to be a moral act. That was kind of the whole point - whether or not we HAVE free will, it certainly seems like we do, and w/o it - there IS no morality.
If the pill can make a person moral or no moral, it eliminates choice unless one wants to say taking the pill then becomes the moral choice.
I also hesitate to say that what one person thinks is "moral" is certainly arguable as to whether that is the moral choice.
I hate it when you put me in the position of agreeing with you, dunphy.
"Choice is the singular moral act and all one chooses can only be considered in a moral context if that choice is free."
y'know, this may blow your mind in a matt damon pimping chomsky (or was it zinn?) type of way, but you probably would agree with me about most things. that's why i blog here. i'm a libertarian. i would also suggest (somewhat haughtily of course) that if you knew what i knew about how use of force works in the real world as well as how police and bad guys interact, you might agree with me quite often about use of force. frankly, i find that most people who disagree with me about use of force here make false arguments such as "i always apologize for excessive force" (which is demonstrably false - e.g. the cop who beat that girl in the jail cell outside seattle who i said shoudl be prosecuted and he was). of course you could agree with the idiocracy epitomized by hmm who claims that cops are "firearms experts". lol
The areas of disagreement, unfortunately, are difficult to overcome. I don't blame you in particular for the many problems in our current criminal justice system (I put the police in that bucket). I just think the problems there are so egregious and system so corrupt that a moral individual would run screaming from that snakepit. Your continued employment as a cop makes you deeply suspect in the eyes of a lot of us here. For better or worse, you're the point man for an incredibly fucked up system.
i would suggest, and have repeatedly that corruption is a lot rarer than people think, and good cops are a hell of a lot more common. but again, selection bias rears it's ugly head. balko won't chronicle, nor does our dept. even issue press releases 99% of the time we take violent fucksticks into custody with often risk to ourselves without any harm to anybody. i tackled some suicidal violent woman with a butcher knife the other day. won't make the papers. etc. regardless, there are corrupt and bad cops. they should be weeded out. there are cases of excessive force. they shoudl result in discipline, and in some cases - termination
on that we agree
however, the SYSTEMic problems,. for example the very existence of the WOD is not the fault of the police. it's the fault of the legislators and you darn well know it. heck, i know a lot of cops who look the other way at petty mj offenses all the times DESPITE the laws against MJ. but the legislature could end the wod - tomorrow.
they are the "Deciders" to borrow a term, thus they are the ones to blame, not us.
day in and day out, most cops i know do a damn good job. the worst offense i see from cops is laziness, not corruption. i can be deeply suspect to many here, but the reality is that wanking about alleged (and real) police corruption on the reason.com blog does exactly NOTHING to change anything. circle jerking over how much cops suck makes you feel superior but accomplishes nothing. many years ago, serpico and a few of his fellow officers made the argument that in order to help reduce corruption (and mediocre policing) PD's shoudl OUTREACH to people who traditionally would never consider being cops int he first place and emphasize the nobility of the job. THEY did something fight corruption. wanking here does nothing
heck, merely by being one of the good guys, i am doing something. are you? because if you aint part of the solution, you are part of the problem. i am part of the solution. that's the difference
. i tackled some suicidal violent woman with a butcher knife the other day. won't make the papers.
I don't make the papers when I do my job either.
one can do one's job in an extraordinary way and that is a good example. i was under no legal duty to tackle her. i did so because she was wearing heavy clothing, making a tase ineffective, and i didn't want to shoot her if she advanced on us or the victim. the point is "cop does not shoot armed violent felon" rarely makes the papers. if it bleeds, it leads
the point is "cop does not shoot armed violent felon" rarely makes the papers.
You're such a hero! That should be run-of-the-mill, but because you and your violent brethren love to rip a few bullets around regardless of who they hit, it's positively newsworthy!
Actually, the guys who refuse to be cops are part of the solution and guys like you who enforce bad laws are part of the problem.
After all if you treated heroin dealing like you do adultery, the WOD would be dead in a heart-beat.
I honestly wonder if there is any law that you would refuse to enforce. Do you have any line in the sand that you would quit rather than enforce?
utter rubbish. the people who ARE the problem are the people who pass stupid laws. laws against drug possession are bad policy. they are not facially invalid. again, what are you DOING to change the law? wanking about it on the internet is not DOING something.
Whose orders you dutifully carry out? Here in MA, adultery is a misdemeanor. Would you arrest someone for it? If not, why is it any different from refusing to enforce a law that says a felon can't own a gun?
And frankly, if you guys actually refused to enforce those laws, the policy would change, and change quick. I seem to remember you referring to an incident when one of your fellow gang-bangers was facing an illegal gambling charge, one that had never been enforced before. Should he have been prosecuted anyway? Were the union reps wrong for pointing out the fact that it had never been enforced before as a reason to nullify that law?
I notice you are silent on what laws you would refuse to enforce. That's pretty fucking ominous if you ask me.
You know what? I'm willing to admit that I am being hard on you if you will do one thing that shows guts. Join LEAP. Become the second non-retired cop to join it. After all, it should cause you no problems since you (unlike most of the people working in so called law enforcement) have little to do with the War on (some) Drugs.
You don't even have to reveal your name to us - the news that there were now two non-retired cops who were dues paying members of LEAP would get me to stop pointing out how much less free the world is because of you.
jeez, the idiocy just continues. there are several laws in MA general laws that are archaic and nobody enforces them, because among other things, everybody including the attorney general - has said they are unconstitutional
last i checked, MA also had a law against "blaspheming the name of god". needless to say if some moronic cop arrested me for saying "jesus fucking christ, you are a moron", that would be a false arrest.
hth
and again, what are YOU doing to make the world a better place and fight the war on drugs. i've already said some of the stuff I do. what do YOU do?
wanking on the internet doesn't count as action fwiw
hth
So, I guess joining LEAP is too much to ask huh?
BTW, WTF does HTH mean? Hard-Toking Hermaphrodite? Hot To Hit? Have To Hide? Hugging Trees Happily, Hungry To Hump?
the people who ARE the problem are the people who pass stupid laws. laws against drug possession are bad policy. they are not facially invalid.
They are unconstitutional. But hey, you're just following orders.
Who ruled that laws against drug possession are unconstitutional?
Dude, where is drug prohibition authorized in the U.S. Constitution?
Where is the ammendment analogous to the one prohibiting alcohol?
Actually, the guys who refuse to be cops are part of the solution and guys like you who enforce bad laws are part of the problem.
After all if you treated heroin dealing like you do adultery, the WOD would be dead in a heart-beat.
I honestly wonder if there is any law that you would refuse to enforce. Do you have any line in the sand that you would quit rather than enforce?
as i've explained tons of times,i spend less than 2% (i did the math in the other thread) of my time enforcing any drug laws whatsoever. period. the fact is that no sentient cop can agree with every law. either we have anarchy or we have rule of law. i work on the side of rule of law, and helping people. you work on the side of wanking on the internet and thus far showing me no example of how you promote POSITIVE CHANGE.
No. You lock people up in cages and beat them up. Occasionally you send letters to other people that starts a process that deprives them of liberty, property or both.
Now, it's possible that occasionally your actions help people. However, given the massively high incarcaration rate in the U.S. I'll bet that a significant percentage of the people you help kidnap and cage are the first or second order victims of state aggression.
So long as people like you are willing to obey orders and deny your responsibility for your actions, the totalitarians win.
As for myself, I have done several things:
1) I don't help the U.S. government murder people anymore. I miss the fun of going out to sea, but now my conscience rests easy.
2) I professionally help people reduce their taxes and keep more money for themselves. Unfortunately, in doing so, actually carry water for the totalitarians' social-engineering projects. However, the people I work with are left better off - they pay less protection money to your bosses and keep more for themselves.
3) I persuade people to hold the state in contempt. Usually I am polite, but with some characters you really have to shove their faces in the shit they spew before they get civilization-trained.
Do I still get twinges of conscience? Oh yes! Every time I help some elderly person purchase a mutual fund that invests in U.S. government bonds which the law compels us to treat as being secure while they are in fact unreliable. Of course, I don't let my clients put all their eggs in that basket, and I am do as much as I can without risking guys like you coming to kidnap me.
By refusing to cooperate, and inciting others to stop cooperating, I am creating positive change. By arresting people while hoping, really really hard I'm sure, that someone else will change the laws, you are creating negative change.
And, if you are pissed off by me pointing this out, I suggest that you go look in he mirror, because the guy who you really are angry at is yourself. I'm merely pointing out the incompatibility between your philosophy and your profession.
Dunphy doesn't seem to understand that just because we're railing on him on the internet doesn't mean we aren't doing other things in our personal time. Instead, his guilt over enforcing unjust laws leads him to lash out at people and accuse them of not doing anything to support their beliefs.
Dunphy, you are part of the problem. You enforce unconstitutional laws. Get it through your thick, pig skull.
Dear Dipshit:
Weren't you just bitching about being attacked personally on this site and people not discussing or arguing the position.
Odd how you, in all your morality, seem to be able to condemn and complain about an action on one hand and commit it with the other. This is your second unprovoked comment about me as a person that someone has emailed me and oddly I haven't even posted on or really read Reason in a month. Are you still so bent out of shape that I called you out months ago on your bullshit, that I make fun of your pathetic attempts to sound like an attorney with Latin phrases and catchy legal terms, and that in general every one here of any consequence or reputation has either stopped responding to your drivel (I should learn from this) or still makes fun of you? Fuck me man, get the fuck over it. It's nice that you pop around to make stupid comments like it's nice to have that one retarded friend who gets drunk and naked, but like that friend you get old fast.
You are a fucking moron of the highest order. You have just enough education to be dangerous and sadly I fear some municipality trusts your judgment. You optimize what is wrong with the system and police today. (I have no qualms with commenting on you as person given your history of posting here, and unlike you I'm not going to hypocritically bitch and moan about it personal attacks. I just like pointing out how fucking shallow and stupid you really are, which is something you make exceedingly easy to do.
Now please return to your convoluted half-ass theories based in little more than personal opinion and anecdotal bullshit. Oh, and can't forget the 4 months of police academy training where officers don't learn to be experts in firearms so it's okay when they shoot people by fucking accident.
P.S. Fucking idiot. (I had one insult left, now off to the shitter and a rousing round of angry birds to make better use of my time!)
P.P.S. Just because one P.S. in an editable post is not contemptibly arrogant enough you fucking jackbooted idiot.
Sincerely,
hmm
Have a nice fuckin' day.
YOU ARE SUCH A MORON.
you constantly also lie. example: i *never* said it was OK for the BART cop to shoot they guy. what i said was the EXACT SAME THING RADLEY BALKO SAID - that he was properly found GUILTY of involuntary manslaughter.
you just constantly lie. i can't believe your reading comprehension is that bad, so it must be lying
also, you still - to this day, can't simply admit you stated a falsehood when you said cops were firearms experts.
you are a moron. i am glad there is a record of what you say, and what i say. i've stated the facts correctly, and you - to this day- have to lie about my position.
it's pretty fricken sad
Your caps key was stuck there for a second and it appears sporadically spastically stick.
i note your refusal to admit (yet another) lie. i said the exact same thing that Balko said - the BART cop should have been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Did you attack his pov? it's the same as mine... that you misrepresented continually
i also note you can't admit you were wrong about cops and their firearms expertise. maybe next time i testify at an inquest, i can be certified as a firearms expert. after all, some nimrod in his mama's basement on the intertoobz said we are. must be true
I wasn't lying, your caps key does appear to be spastically sticking.
You have a mommy basement issue as well. Did your mother lock you in the basement once and tell you to put the lotion on it's skin?
"If the pill can make a person moral or no moral, it eliminates choice unless one wants to say taking the pill then becomes the moral choice."
Well, yeah, the person choose to take the pill, right? Why do you have to be a victim of the neurochemistry you happen to be genetically predisposed to?
"the more you go against nature, it's part of nature too" - love and rockets paraphrased, channeling camus, who was some smart french guy
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not.
i kind of am. i made the same point earlier. if taking the pill is a CHOICE, an element of free will, then it's a moral decision. however, if taking the pill results in a state where your choice is eroded, it's no longer free will. so, i guess exercising your free will not to have free will kind of eliminates it being free will
or something...
I'll take those increased-empathy-for-people-in-foreign-countries pill when they make a stop-foreign-politicians/dictators-from-being-insanely-corrupt-and-hoarding-aid-money pill.
Science may have ignored this, but science fiction has undertaken serious study of the concept for quite some time.
you probably would agree with me about most things
A guy who thinks traveling freely around the country is a "privilege" and not a RIGHT?
Not fucking likely.
to what are you referring? if you are referring to the right of non-citizens to ENTER this country, then yes - i believe that. entry to NON-citizens is a privilege, not a right. just like it is practically everywhere else on earth, and especially so when a first world nation borders a thirld world one.
when it comes to citizens and those legally present in this country, then yes - traveling freely is a right.
it is not a libertarian litmus test that one be for open borders. many here are. i am not. that's no mystery.
in brief, I stand with Dr. Ron Paul when it comes to immigration. sorry, if he isn't libertarian enough for you...
Ron Paul: "We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.
Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship.
Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one's birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.
We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase."
with one exception. i genreally agree with birthright citizenship, but not open borders
Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one's birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.
Hate to break it to you. This is pure bullshit.
Ahh, fuck.
Reivers are Brits? That explains the teeth and their cooking.
Actually, scumphy, I was referring to your collectivist authoritarian assertion in threads of yore, "Driving is a privilege, not a right."
And your claim to be one of the good guys is touching; it almost makes me forget you put people civilians in cages for a living.
Shouldn't you be demonstrating for your collective bargaining "rights" or something?
that's a statement of law, not of "how i wish the law was". there is no "right" to drive. do you believe in penumbras and emanations, or do you believe in constitutional principles, you know the things that statist democrats and republicans routinely ignore?
IF you actually do, then you do not believe driving is a right. if you think it SHOULD be a right, then advocate for state constitutions or state law to "enshrine" it as such. there is no right to drive. that's a fact of legal precedent. in brief, i am right, because it's been established in a metric assload of cases.
it's not surprising to me that you yet again demonstrate your ignorance of law, precedent, the constitution etc. there is the reality based community, and there is the world that exists inside your head
that's a statement of law, not of "how i wish the law was". there is no "right" to drive.
Law and rights are not the same. As for a right to drive, you have not demonstrated in any manner why there is no such right. Claiming the courts as proof is merely an appeal to authority.
do you believe in penumbras and emanations, or do you believe in constitutional principles, you know the things that statist democrats and republicans routinely ignore?
Penumbras and emanations are the things that trickle down from the courts, the very institution where we get the idea that driving is a "privilege". You either accept their edicts blindly or you realize that their rulings have the potential for error. If you accept the latter, then you begin to understand why the "right" to drive may exist regardless of court precedent.
IF you actually do, then you do not believe driving is a right. if you think it SHOULD be a right, then advocate for state constitutions or state law to "enshrine" it as such. there is no right to drive. that's a fact of legal precedent. in brief, i am right, because it's been established in a metric assload of cases.
Again, you confuse legal with moral. If rights must be "enshrined" by law to exist, then blacks had no moral claims to life, liberty and property, until after the courts so ruled. And if they had no rights, then they had no basis for fighting against those who treated them as slaves. If they did have a basis to fight against such treatment, then it must be because some moral principle existed REGARDLESS of the legal rulings of the times.
it's not surprising to me that you yet again demonstrate your ignorance of law, precedent, the constitution etc. there is the reality based community, and there is the world that exists inside your head
The irony.
"Law and rights are not the same. As for a right to drive, you have not demonstrated in any manner why there is no such right. Claiming the courts as proof is merely an appeal to authority."
no, when speaking about the law, explaining the law is called - being correct. i was speaking about the law, and various and sundry nimrods with reading comprehension difficulties can't understand that.
if *you* think driving should be a right, then more power to you. you are making a normative argument. i wasn't. grok the distinction
"Penumbras and emanations are the things that trickle down from the courts, the very institution where we get the idea that driving is a "privilege". You either accept their edicts blindly or you realize that their rulings have the potential for error. If you accept the latter, then you begin to understand why the "right" to drive may exist regardless of court precedent."
no, i realize that there is no reason apart from some funhouse mirror judicial activism to believe that under our system of law, that driving is a right.
if you think it's a right, then make a legal argument as to why it's a right.
"Again, you confuse legal with moral. If rights must be "enshrined" by law to exist, then blacks had no moral claims to life, liberty and property, until after the courts so ruled. And if they had no rights, then they had no basis for fighting against those who treated them as slaves. If they did have a basis to fight against such treatment, then it must be because some moral principle existed REGARDLESS of the legal rulings of the times"
again, that's a normative argument. the fact is that, as a matter of law, blacks had far less rights under our constitution than they do now. that's a BAD thing.
if you think it's a bad thing that driving is not a right, then groovy. i disagree with you. but that's a completely different argument than the one i made. again, distinguish between the normative and the factual legal realities.
you haven't.
libertarians generally think people should have the right to do stuff that does not affect others - that's why were are for legalized drug use, prostitution, etc.
driving, even when done with reasonable prudence often results in significant death or injury to others. that's why it's a privilege, not a right. that's why one must demonstrate competency in doing it safely, why it is highly regulated (on public roads) , why a license is required, etc.
there should be no requirement to have a CCW. the right to carry should be automatic. we would probably agree. RKBA is a RIGHT
driving is a privilege. the state has the authority, and the duty , to heavily regulate who can or can't drive, to have minimum standards for competency be clearly demonstrated (driver's tests), to set somewhat arbitrary rules (like speed limits) etc.
it is clearly distinguishable from stuff like - who you can fuck, what drugs you can take, etc. that are self regarding acts
no, when speaking about the law, explaining the law is called - being correct. i was speaking about the law, and various and sundry nimrods with reading comprehension difficulties can't understand that.
Again, you confuse LAW with RIGHTS. Do you not even know the words of the Declaration? The concept of "INALIENABLE RIGHTS"!?!?! Those moral propositions that exist regardless of legal edicts?!?!?!
if *you* think driving should be a right, then more power to you. you are making a normative argument. i wasn't. grok the distinction
My God. Laws are predicated on normative concepts. Laws against theft, rape, murder, etc. are based on normative concepts (good/bad).
no, i realize that there is no reason apart from some funhouse mirror judicial activism to believe that under our system of law, that driving is a right.
if you think it's a right, then make a legal argument as to why it's a right.
again, that's a normative argument. the fact is that, as a matter of law, blacks had far less rights under our constitution than they do now. that's a BAD thing.
Using the term "bad" appeals to normative ethics. You can't escape the fact that rights exist regardless of legality, because there must be a moral claim to make to demand such recognition. Yes, the law did not recognize their rights as individuals, but not because they didn't have any rights, but merely because they could exert power over them.
if you think it's a bad thing that driving is not a right, then groovy. i disagree with you. but that's a completely different argument than the one i made. again, distinguish between the normative and the factual legal realities.
you haven't.
And again, you don't comprehend that normative concepts are the foundation of law. If a politician wanted to pass a bill to outlaw the color green, would you claim that this is a valid function of law, whether you disagree with this idea or not, since it is simply a factual regulation of society? Of course not. And even this regulation has a normative component, since it is founded on some claim that green is bad and should not be visible. An "ought" claim is present in every law.
driving, even when done with reasonable prudence often results in significant death or injury to others. that's why it's a privilege, not a right. that's why one must demonstrate competency in doing it safely, why it is highly regulated (on public roads) , why a license is required, etc.
there should be no requirement to have a CCW. the right to carry should be automatic. we would probably agree. RKBA is a RIGHT
There is no reason why the former is significantly different than the latter in regards to rights. Both can cause serious harm, yet you claim that regulating the former is necessary, while the latter is self-evidently a right, no explanation necessary.
oh, and in brief my assertion has nothing to do with collectivism or authoritarianism. it has to do with something you have zero understanding of: law.
the argument was not whether it SHOULD be a right. it was whether it IS a right.
I've had this idea for a short story floating in my head for the last few years.... 40 years in the future, a young Filipino hacker modifies an influenza virus to insert a new sequence into the DNA of glial cells. The purpose? Causing the body to manufacture it's own supply of MDMA. Dubbed the new 'I love you' virus, it sweeps the globe causing society to collapse into a worldwide cuddle puddle.
"Science has ignored the question of moral improvement so far, but it is now becoming a big debate,"
Science has also avoided the question of aesthetic and spiritual improvement, probably because none of them are scientific questions. Fuck, I hope this is a bunch of hype. Eumemics will be even worse than eugenics (granted, I say this as a 21st century white person).
"A face, licking a boot, forever."
"And, my brothers, believe it or kiss my sharries, I got down on my knees and pushed my red yahzick out a mile and half to lick his grahzny vonny boots."
Can legally artifical persons -- think corporations, not androids -- possess a sense of morality?
well, all the leftists tell me that "corporations are evil" so i guess that's a yes?
They sort of already do -- their charter basically defines the ethics of their existence, although I imagine that pretty much amounts to "don't overtly break the law, and serve the best interest of your shareholders in good faith." I'm less certain about non-business corporations -- the charter may lay out the objectives of the organization in detail, I suppose.
the people who ARE the problem are the people who pass stupid laws. laws against drug possession are bad policy.
And who goes to the legislatures and testifies in favor of more (and more severe) laws, and of putting people in cages? The pigs.
You're hilarious, scumphy.
actually, generally speaking, it's the cop-o-crats- the police administrators. they have as much in common with the average cop, as the CEO of GM has with some guy working the assembly line. and plenty of cops have come out for legalization
heck, the chief in my former PD told me in my first week "I don't care what somebody is smoking in the privacy of their own home"
regardless, the legislators are the deciders, thus they get the blame
you remind me of the leftist nimrods who blame bill oreilly for dr. tiller's death, because he used the "baby killer" moniker.
same twisted logic.
libertarians are supposed to understand that with locus of control comes responsibility
hth
and again, brooks. what have YOU done? and to clarify, your wanking on the intertoobz while sitting in yer basement picking zits and scarfing hot pockets down your gullet while your mama draws a warm bath for you doesn't count as action
I think you should challenge him to a fight. Mano-a-mano. Two men One man and one troglodyte enter and one man leaves. We can call it REASON DOME! The Jacket will, of course, be Blaster. This Blaster! Twenty men enter, only him leave!
his silence speaks volumes. wanking on the intertoobz about evul corrupt fsacist copz is not ACTION. in brief, i stand by my decision to make the world a better place by being in law enforcement. i disagree with many laws and policies. that's a fact of life in every system except true anarchy. we live under a system of laws.
if these laws are so unjust, why don't you go down to your local PD with a couple of grams of heroin and display it in open view, so you can get arrested and actually FIGHT these laws? DO SOMETHING.
I just bring out the caps key in you, don't I?
I'm glad you're making the world a better place. What would we do with out that thin blue line of dunphy. I'd go on a date with you, but I'd have to ride in the back seat. Your ego would be riding shotgun...
his silence speaks volumes. wanking on the intertoobz about evul corrupt fsacist copz is not ACTION. in brief, i stand by my decision to make the world a better place by being in law enforcement. i disagree with many laws and policies. that's a fact of life in every system except true anarchy. we live under a system of laws.
And this justifies your enforcement of laws that are unjust and cause harm to real people how?
if these laws are so unjust, why don't you go down to your local PD with a couple of grams of heroin and display it in open view, so you can get arrested and actually FIGHT these laws? DO SOMETHING.
But didn't you claim that you disagree with some of the laws also? Where is your fight against such laws? Or is it easier to go with the flow and protect your livelihood?
It's telling how you demand that Brooks sacrifice his liberty to make a statement about such laws while you simply shrug your shoulders and enforce the one's you disagree with.
yes, i do. where i have a CHOICE, i don't enforce them. heck, most cops i know don't enforce misdemeanor mj laws, for instance.
again, this is an issue that has been hashed over ad nauseum.
i accept that i disagree with some laws and policies. i do not accept that the only moral course of action for a cop is to selectively only enforce those laws he disagrees with. that is, in brief, anarchy.
imagine a country where every cop was his own legislature. that's what you want. in brief, you want vastly expanded police power - you want every individual cop to have his own penal code (huh huh huh). that's ridiculous. it's the difference between those of us who live in the real world, and make changes where we can, and those who do nothing to effect positive change, but like to wank about it on the internet.
do you believe in seperation of powers or the unitary executive?
yes, i do. where i have a CHOICE, i don't enforce them. heck, most cops i know don't enforce misdemeanor mj laws, for instance.
again, this is an issue that has been hashed over ad nauseum.
i accept that i disagree with some laws and policies. i do not accept that the only moral course of action for a cop is to selectively only enforce those laws he disagrees with. that is, in brief, anarchy.
Your definition of anarchy is lacking. You can't have a stateless society, i.e. anarchy, with a state and it's officials, even if they selectively enforce the law. Not to mention, cops and judicial systems selectively enforce laws on a daily basis. This is common knowledge. Hell, you admitted to it in the opening sentence.
If you enforce actions that you find immoral, then what are you, if not acting immorally? The argument of authority (it's the law) is irrelevant. How many atrocities have been commited under such pretense? Were Soviet police acting morally when they were sending enemies of the state to the gulags?
imagine a country where every cop was his own legislature. that's what you want. in brief, you want vastly expanded police power - you want every individual cop to have his own penal code (huh huh huh). that's ridiculous. it's the difference between those of us who live in the real world, and make changes where we can, and those who do nothing to effect positive change, but like to wank about it on the internet.
I would have the police be HIGHLY limited in their authority, so your assertion is exactly backward.
do you believe in seperation of powers or the unitary executive?
You pose this question as if it's a matter of moral principle, as opposed to an institutional structure. You may as well ask if I believe in a federation of states or the Federal Government.
again, we have a given set of laws. let's talk about reality, not your fantasy world.
in this real world, there are two choices: 1) only people who agree with all the laws can become cops because while cops have a fair amount of discretion regarding victimless misdemeanors, we don't have barely any regarding felonies and/or clearcut misdemeanors involving a victim not to mention all those DV laws where i am FORCED to arrest by law.
or
2) cops can enforce laws that they may not personally agree with, and do what they can to advocate for a change in the laws they disagree with.
i vote for 2
it's realistic
that, and pragmatism are consistent with libertarianism.
the perfect is the enemy of the good.
and would you rather only have cops that go out of their way to enforce any and all drug laws, even the most petty, or do you want good people who sometimes have to enforce laws they may disagree with?
that, and pragmatism are consistent with libertarianism.
Pragmatism is consistent with almost no ideological principles. Most pragmatist philosophers reject the very concept of rights.
Though this is more consistent with your beliefs, seeing as you believe in a legal positivist approach. What is law is right.
i do not accept that the only moral course of action for a cop is to selectively only enforce those laws he disagrees with. that is, in brief, anarchy.
If you engage in an immoral act, regardless of its legality, you are worse than any cop who selectively enforces the law. You are a bad person, as opposed to merely a person engaging in illegal activity. It is not anarchy when you refuse to violate the rights of another human being.
Ohhhh, ZING!
again, what have YOU done? i note the "scrupulous silence". wanking on the internet doesn't fight injustice. all hat, no cattle, apparently.
I once saved a kitten from certain death. Beat that!
extracting your tiny penis from his sphincter before he hemmoraged to death doesn't really count, but nice try
Where my tiny penis goes is none of your business, unless that was an offer?
You seem to have an issue with sexuality, did your mother breast feed you too long?
i'm just saying removing it prior to killing the kitteh doesn't count as saving a life. don't try to evade the issue.
Do you realize you aren't doing the dumb cop stereotype any good right now?
i realize i have stated facts that you have refused to acknowledge e.g. your lie that i apologized for what the BART cop did, your failure to acknowledge i took the same position as balko, or your failure to acknowledge you falsely stated that cops are firearms experts.
the record is clear.
I realized that the only shit a man should take is the one he's getting paid for. Therefore, I only shit when on a billable hour.
that's an evasion worthy of your level of dishonesty. typical
Any drugs to get rid of altruism?!?!
But the point was to make people more moral, and that would certainly not be moral.
We can now state this objectively, because bioethicists after years of research have finally isolated the fundamental unit of neurochemical morality, called the "moron" for obvious reasons. Studies have shown a clear link between progressive attitudes and moronic density.
Goodnight sweet prince dunphy, I have to go save puppies and kittens now. Thank you for keeping me safe.
*kiss*
It's funny. I have known a few cops, over the years, and even the ones who seem like they're not really bad guys will, when you scratch the surface, turn into frothing-at-the-mouth "I can ruin your life! I can fucking DISAPPEAR YOU!" authoritarian assholes. It doesn't take much.
well, you apparently know some very different cops than i know. Lots of cops are on power trips. Lots of politicians, too. Heck, I've met some DMV workers like that. People like that have mass suckitude
If you're not cop, you're little people, mister dunphy. Of course yur brothers are nice to you, you're not a mundane.
i knew cops before i became a cop. the fact that they were good people, treated me fairly ( i was even detained once as an armed robbery suspect), etc. was part of the reason i decided to become a cop. i did some ride-a-long, talked to people, etc and that changed my mind. when i was a college-know-it-all, i thought cops were dumb fascists. i realized i was wrong.
Cops are dumb fascists. They enforce unconstitutional laws that violate the rights which every human being holds. The ones that don't outright do that support the ones that do, either explicitly or through silence.
well, you apparently know some very different cops than i know. Lots of cops are on power trips. Lots of politicians, too. Heck, I've met some DMV workers like that. People like that have mass suckitude
Notice the connection? All government employees.
where i have a CHOICE, i don't enforce them.
Hey, what happened to that NATION OF LWZISLAWZ stuff?
Are you telling us the "law" is whatever you say it is, at any given moment, depending solely upon whether you're on the rag, or feeling magnanimous? "Don't you look at me, BOY! GET ON THE GROUND!"
I feel so much better now.
no, i am saying we have discretion with some stuff, and with other stuff we don't.
the law doesn't say i MUST arrest somebody for possessing a bud of mj.
it DOES say i must arrest somebody for violating a no contact order that was issued by a judge against a victim's wishes and where they are together voluntarily.
i don't think i shoudl HAVE to arrest for either. however, i only HAVE to arrest for the latter. in fact, i am committing official misconduct and arguably criminal contempt if i don't
not to mention occurring immense civil liability PERSONALLY if i don't
and again, what do YOU do to help change the system?
wank on the internet?
every libertarian here should want to serve on juries. i've seen more than one brag about how they got off jury duty. a libertarian on a jury can use jury nullification, the ultimate citizen power
Oddly enough, I faced a similar quandry at one time. The law said that I had to kill people whom the President or one of the officers he had appointed above me ordered me to.
Now I don't have to worry about such things. Because I quit that job.
If you quit being a cop and take up honest work you don't have to worry about being held in criminal contempt for refusing to fuck up someone's life. A letter of resignation won't incur a dime of personal liability?
You'll actually be able to talk to people without them being in fear of you.
You might even be able to philosophize on libertarian comment boards without people calling you out for carrying water for totalitarians.
You'd be amazed how liberating it is to stop being a creature that harms your neighbors at the command of psychopaths.
Just walk away dunphy! The world will be a better place, and you can reclaim your self-respect.
So basically, scientists have discovered ecstacy.
I got kicked out of a jury pool one time, because I answered the prosecutor's* questions honestly.
Are you suggesting I walk into a courtroom and lie?
*a strutting bullet-headed little cretin who looked like he still had a collection of sheriff's deputy uniforms in his closet and a shiny new community college law degree hanging on his office wall.
i accept that i disagree with some laws and policies.
However, since I know I am immune to any consequences if I disobey them, I just try not to think about it.
driving, even when done with reasonable prudence often results in significant death or injury to others. that's why it's a privilege, not a right. that's why one must demonstrate competency in doing it safely, why it is highly regulated (on public roads) , why a license is required, etc.
What a steaming pile of kneejerk authoritarianism.
Interestingly, when I asked him upthread where the line was where he would refuse to enforce a law, he declined to answer, choosing to accuse me of being an Internet tuff gai instead.
It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me.
The big problem with this is that thoughts and feelings have nothing to do with morality. Morality deals solely with actions.
Only mother and primary teachers can help with moral behaviour.This pill idea is useless.
Pills for everything is not as good as it sounds.Next time if your son wants swimming lessons then what you will tell him,go and take "swimming pills".This whole idea is absurd.We are humans not some machines.