IEET Readers Endorse Wide Availability of Morality Pills

What’s in the pills? How can anyone really decide on this without knowing what is in the pills? and what other types of effects they have on the body?!

This is actually the most dangerous development in human history. People do not consider the long-term consequences of intervening without thoughts into the human emotional control system. There is the unjustified general believe that there are some `detrimental’ emotional leftovers from our ancestors which should be eradicated.

i was unaware that this group tended toward fascism!

It is a truly dangerous twist of mind that convinces itself that others are the problem.

it is troublesome that a group on ethics would a) conduct such a poll, and b) perform so poorly on it!

time to wake up now. And take your OWN empathy pills!

sheez.

Mary couldn’t have said it better… 26% of the people scare me.

Freedom is the highest moral.

Wow, IEET readers are horrendously immoral if they endorse morality pills but sadly the irony of their immorality is lost on them.

Morality pills are slavery. A total abomination. It is utter depravity, utterly immoral that people are even considering such a proposition.

Sadly I doubt the type of specious morality being considered will protect the moral right to free will.

The government already controls and influentiates the moral behavior of people through what is called social contract. This is initiation of force too, if we were to reject contra-causal free will, because exertion of force is not only physical force, but psychological force too (memetics). Every agent who happens to get one of the “best” lottery card available in the history of Earth’s biosphere gets raised inside a liberal democracy that puts constraints to deviant impulses even if you are not raised by an empathetic family or have the best pro-social genes. So, if my reasoning is correct, then we must admit that the dividing line is not so clear.

Personally, I think most “pill-based” solutions for morality are based on an intuition pump thought experiment that paints these pills as 100% effective without unintended consequences in the medium and long term. Human behavior and the value formation though cooperation and empathetic reflexes is complex so I think we must stick to what we know from social and cognitive sciences, because they show to us that we already have many solutions that can be put in place right now to implement a more decent society without hard interventionistic top-bottom initiatives.

People have a right to their opinion. The fascists are those who want to gag peoples viewpoint. Well they arent fascist but they possess a dictatorial mindset. I am sure that many of those who voted in a way that you wouldnt vote are as far removed from fascism as hot is from cold. In addition to that it is at least close to offensive to label non-fascists as fascist just because you disagree with them. I didnt vote in this but provided that the pills are SAFE and contribute to health… and dont make us all want to throw Jews in gas chambers… then Im all for such a progressive (not fascist) idea. When someone can demonstrate how a SAFE (and dont forget the word ‘safe’) procedure could result in us all going crazy and throwing minorities in gas chambers then I will u-turn and oppose the idea. Until then I will assume that the label ‘fasicst’ isnt really meant. I think the word that you are looking for is something that means ‘I dont like the idea even if it is safe’. How does ‘rebellious’ or ‘teenage’ sound? So I am all for a MATURE discussion and debate on this. Dont let the rebellious dictators prevent freedom of thought. Mature opposition should be able to argue a case based on side effects of pills, health concerns and so on. Otherwise its all emotion. At least thats my view. So I applaud IEET for starting a sensible valuable discussion. And the forthcoming basic income discussion is a good one too considering that tech specialists will monopolize the workforce in the future. Brilliant Brilliant Brilliant discussions.

Paul, fascism begins in the minds of the well-meaning. Thinking we can solve problems by forcing conformity seems arrogant, even though it is a view forwarded by people who no doubt see themselves as promoting the general health and well-being of our social body.

it’s something like cannibalism: best to leave a wide margin of error, for we know not what we do. And it is a Very Slippery Slope, as history too clearly reveals.

much more effective to do the hard job of truly accepting the reality of diverse ways of being. Inner divisiveness expresses as outer divisiveness. And we can see the state of the world when that dynamic dominates.

I accept the participant’s rights to participate. I just hope their ignorance does not inform the masses, and sound the distant alarm. Too often in history have these mindsets led to Horrendous Destruction. I hope the participants will dig a little deeper before engaging the speech centers.

NO pill will substitute for the down-deep and dirty truth, which ever recedes as the thinking mind approaches. Given this, a little humility goes a long, long way toward saving the planet. Don’t trouble us with superficial piece-meals, please.

@ Mary and SU - I voted with the 26% who favor putting a morality pill in the water supply, and I don’t understand your objections. I envision the morality pill as a neuro-technological enabler that will enhance our amygdala’s ability to comprehend and process other people’s emotions, and empathize with them. I attended the NYU Moral Brain lectures today and psychopathology was defined as the amygdala’s inability to do just what I just described. Can’t we envision a morality pill that eradicates that liability and elevates every human being’s empathy level?

I have noticed that people don’t hesitate to improve their vision, or their hearing, or their heart, or their knees, etc., etc., but if anyone suggests that the human brain could be improved, many people freak out. Why is that? Do you regard your own brain as absolutely without-any-need-of-improvement?

IMO, the dialogue here proves that many of us clearly need the medication that is being discussed. A poll gets put up, and instead of a level-headed dialogue about what the results mean, flammable words get flung out immediately, words like fascism, abomination, slavery, horrendous, etc.  Can’t you express yourself in a less combative manner? 

I am suggesting that, also, as this blog’s comment moderator. Don’t jump aggressively on anyone who disagrees with you, just state your POV civilly, or I will send your comment back to you and insist that you rewrite it in a more diplomatic tone.

@hankpellissier

Hank, if the empathy enhancing pill fine-tunes and optimizes our affective empathy, that is kind of acceptable. The problem is that empathy is not only affective, but cognitive too. Research has show that narcissists are better at reading other’s mind (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201202/are-narcissists-better-reading-minds), they are better at cognitive empathy, so we must account for unintended consequences of enhancing the different aspects of our empathetic inferences.

Also, as a sideline, we must not overrate empathy IMHO. Enhanced empathic response can help one individual to integrate the mind-states of the people living around him and represent them in a normative context in the long term. In the short term, it constraints outbursts of physical violence. But emotional intelligence is severely limited in its capacity to comprehend the world’s immense suffering. It is not possible to internalize the billions of violent acts that take place everyday on this planet. We capable of using a non-emotional cognizance to form an ethical decision, even if that decision is normative to internalization of phenomenal states of mind based on emotional imprinting. Rational triggering of empathetic responses are numerically-bound. When it comes down to solving large scales problem that affect modern civilizations in the long term, empathy is necessary but not sufficient.

If we can fix the fragility of human empathic drives or fine-tune it without any unintended consequences, then this “pill” would enhance all aspects of our cognition. But the major causes of mental illnesses and sociopathic behavior can be tackled without any pill or top-down enhancement and it is the result of the very thing we may be trying to fix: empathy. Lack of empathy of leaders and politicians. Pushing forward an authoritarian top-down solution to fix the non-empathic individuals is counter-productive… And depending on the targeted population, its a selfish action against those that didn’t get the “best” lottery card available in the history of Earth’s biosphere. It could be a dangerous political move that surprisingly lacks the very thing that it may be trying to fix: empathy.

Hank I’ve composed my views about this issue here:  <a href=“http://singularity-utopia.blogspot.com/2012/03/subjectivity-nanotechnological-perfect.html”>http://singularity-utopia.blogspot.com/2012/03/subjectivity-nanotechnological-perfect.html</a>

I must say I am deeply shocked that you Hank were one of the 26%.

Hank you have a narrow outlook regarding your definition of “psychopathology”, I suggest reading up on anti-psychiatry and then you will perhaps, or perhaps not, see how how the definition of “psychopathology” is subjective, the One-Eyed King would say.

Morality pills in combination with the stress vaccine, and lithium added to the water, demonstrates alarming proposals for chemical subjugation of free-will, free-thinking, free-minds.

I am all for extreme modification of humans but such modification must only be done when we have a truly clear picture of reality, which means we first need to eliminate the causes of hostility, societal dysfunction (our sociopolitical system of scarcity). Morality pills are like investing all your money in a petrol engine car a few months before all petrol supplies run out and all cars become solar-power based. During this era I therefore lean towards changes to external circumstances instead of adapting humans to the circumstances. You could irrevocably adapt humans to circumstances only to discover a short while later that the circumstances are very bad and due to be obsolete. Some Transhumanists are too hasty. Considering if we live long enough we will live forever, I feel it is better to wait before rushing into a potentially very authoritarian type of modification.

Transhumanism and the Singularity is largely about technological enhancement. Moreover that is what technology has always done right? i.e., extend our reach. Well nothing needs enhancing more than the human mind… for health and morality purposes. So long as this CAN be done then its a good thing. If it cannot be done then fair enough. Becoming healthier is perfectly consistent with transhumanism and the Singularity. I do not know if safe moral enhancement is possible. But I know that it isnt fascism IF it can be done. Unless you claim that about 92% of the people you dialogue with are fascists. That would be an absurd slur obviously.

Oh yes nothing needs enhancing more than the human mind but it all depends upon who is doing the enhancing. For example Paul I’d be tempted to “enhance” the minds of those people who want morality pills in the water, they need serious and radical brain adjustment, but they may object to my kind of enhancements. Technology is great for extending our reach but blind adoption of technology is not wise; for example nuclear bombs are technology but should we all have nuclear bombs? Just because something is technology this does not mean it is good. Some types of technology can be regressive, not about progress; I wonder how many great minds have been killed via the technology of warfare? In addition to machine guns have you ever heard of Thalidomide? It depends upon your definition of health and progress. Relatively it is healthy to be a banker who makes lots of money exploiting people but is this “health” true health or is it a “sickness”? Should we all reconfigure our minds to fit in with our sick society or should we make society healthy. It is important to consider how our sick society will soon be obsolete thus radical morality changes to our minds will soon be unneeded. **************** note for IEET webmaster: can we have links that work in comments?....and paragraph breaks (currently removed from formatting) would be nice instead of one big textchunk.

@ SU—Psychopathology is a brain function aberration, it is not influenced by the environment. I think you’re referring to sociopaths. You can change society all you want, and there will still be psychopaths.
Very nice parents who do everything right can still have a psychopathic child. Here’s a link for you that explains what is unusual with a psychopath’s brain function:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111122230903.htm

Dear Hank—Wikipedia defines psychopathology as: “...the study of mental illness, mental distress, and abnormal/maladaptive behavior.” Science Daily defines it as: “...a term which refers to either the study of mental illness or mental distress or the manifestation of behaviours and experiences which may be indicative of mental illness or psychological impairment.” My point, Hank, which you seem to miss, is that the differing brain structures are interpreted according to sociological bias, it has been called “sociological relativism” if you want actually do some research. I don’t deny so-called “psychopaths” have different brain structures but the issue is how differing brain structures are interpreted. Neural plasticity is also very relevant to our brain structure. There are various examples of children losing half their brain but due to brain rewiring the remaining half can take over the functions of the missing half. This radical rewiring of the human brain is a natural function of the brain, our experience rewires our brain, our brains evolve according the thoughts we think, thus the environment has a clear impact upon the brain. Epigentics can radically change our minds. “The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness” by R D Laing, and “Sanity, Madness and the Family” both make a case for mental illness being caused by supposedly “nice” parents. Another good book for you to read is “The Games People Play”, by Eric Berne.  Psychopathology in the mainstream sense is basically behavior which doesn’t fit in with societal norms. It doesn’t matter if society is good or bad, the sociological relativism definition of psychopathology states people who excel within society are healthy and those who cannot function are unhealthy. For example during the era of Nazi Germany it was psychological healthy for Germans to hate Jews. Up until 1973 the American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. The issue of homosexuality being a mental illness up until 1973 is perhaps the best way for you to comprehend my point. Really! Homosexuality was only declassified as a mental illness in 1973. Imagine, before homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness, if we had radically altered the brains of homosexuals purely because they did not fit in with current societal norms. A significant number of homosexuals were castrated or forced to undergo pre-frontal lobotomies. I am very sure homosexuals have different brain structures but having a different brain structure does not mean a person is mentally ill. People who think and act differently will have different brain structures but a different brain structure correlating with different thinking does equate psychopathology except in the sociological relativism sense. As I say it is all about how the brain structure is interpreted. Definitions of psychopathology change over time. By forcing brain altering drugs onto people, a mistake could be made akin the the mistaken perception of homosexuality being a mental illness. Psychopaths could have very valuable brains but there is a risk of losing their unique individuality. Diversity must be the spice of life not fascist intolerance towards people who think differently, people with different brain structures. Considering the systemic sickness of our moronic civilization I wouldn’t be surprised if it transpired 30 years from now the psychopaths were the sane ones. Unlike those who want to impose their world-view onto the brains others I will not rush to cure the “normal” people during this current era.

Every society has to define what behavior is dangerous to society and personally culpable - criminality - and what behavior dangerous to self and others and non-culpable, i.e. insane. The fact that those lines have changed and will change is not evidence that they are meaningless and should be ignored. Decriminalization and legal protection from involuntary commitment for nonviolent forms of nonconformity is largely the result of the welcome growth of social tolerance, although it is also abetted by unwillingness to pay for mental health services. No one seriously familiar with the range of institutionalized populations could seriously argue that “30 years from now the psychopaths were the sane ones.” That’s just absurd, and perpetuation of a Szaszian myth has done quite a lot to damage to support for mental health services over the last forty years. Fortunately it is now a largely ignored fringe point of view.

Many of mental health drugs on the market today can cause serious medical conditions. I can’t think of anything else close enough to compare your “morality” drug with. Iatrogenic, or physician caused, disease is a major cause of death in the medical field. The “quick fix” of a pill is no adequate replacement for good parenting skills and practices. These kind of Frankenstein answers to human nature have a way fulfilling the worst fears conjured up by science fiction. There are more than enough poisons in our drinking water to go around as is. I doubt this “morality” pill is going to get us to clean up the planet. I seriously doubt “morality” will ever come in a capsule form. Something maybe, “morality”, or ethics, no. We have anti-depressants now, and they are certainly no happy pills. Huxley gave Soma to his Brave New World. Homer had Ulysses visit the Land of the Lotus Eaters. Drugs are drugs, and “morality” or “immorality”, they are not likely to serve as good replacements for consciousness, now or at any time to come. If we are ever to become “good”, let us evolve there. Don’t force drug us into “goodness” because my hypothesis is that the result is not likely to be as “moral” as maybe some narrow-minded proselysers would conceive it to be. All sorts of destructive things are being done in the name of “morality” now, and we certainly don’t need another pill manufactured to insure a continuation of this bad behavior.

No, jhughes, the changing definition of sanity (for example regarding homosexuality) doesn’t mean all definitions of sanity are meaningless, but it is possible all definitions are very unhelpful or misguided. Aside from possibilities, the past mistakes regarding definitions of sanity mean we should be cautious about seeking cures based upon parochial perceptions of human existence, narrow perceptions based upon sociological relativism, a sociological bias soon to be extremely outdated, hopelessly obsolete. We need to avoid witch-hunts regarding apportioning blame for societal dysfunction. The past human history of racism doesn’t mean we are all racist but it does make us more vigilant regarding stopping new occurrences of racism. The alarming thing about the morality pill is people are thoughtlessly stampeding towards wholehearted advocacy without any critical analysis of the flaws associated with such a proposal. Blind support for ill-considered ideas can lead to Thalidomide type scenarios. If the Suffragettes were given morality pills it is possible women wouldn’t have the right to vote now. Consider also #OWS protesters because it has been suggested all criminals should be given the morality pill. By drugging people into docility, compliance, patience, empathy; I wonder what future radical sociological shifts in perception will be thwarted. OWS and votes for women are the antithesis of patience.

@ Frank

If you concede that the issue of cognitive liberty around mental health is the same whether it is normative pressure to conform, or legal obligation to commit, or pressure to use drugs to conform, or laws requiring use of behavior-modifying drugs, then the issue is not the modality - norms, institutions, drugs - it is the proper and necessary definition of morality, criminality, mental illness and acceptable eccentricity. Focusing on a technology as the cause of a social problem, and technology prohibition as a solution, is the definition of the Luddite error. In a society that protects cognitive liberty people should have the right to use safe and effective cognition/mood/behavior-altering substances. 

@ SU

Enhancing people’s moral responsiveness with drugs may or may not make them more “docile” or on the other hand more ready to challenge injustice. It will depend on the drug and the kind of injustice. Conservatives tend to be happier, but this is largely because they are more married, religious, affluent and complacent about society. There is little evidence that mood enhancement makes people more complacent - if anything, treatment for depression enables personal transformation and social engagement.

Enhancing people’s responsiveness to others pain, however, could be much more complicated. Morally enhanced people might be less willing to support progressive taxation if they become supersensitive to the pain of the “over-taxed” rich folks, or more supportive if they focus on the pain of the under-served poor.  Mood or morality enhancement of a Suffragette would have likely made them a more cheerful and determined Suffragette, not a Stepford wife.

Luddite error? We are in the midst of an epidemic in so-called “mental illness” because of the non-Luddite error.  Drug companies make billions selling drugs to people. Psychiatrists have become little more than the puppets of these drug companies. The speed taken by children labeled with ADHD is no more of a performance enhancer than is the speed taken by speed freaks. What’s more, ADHD stimulants stunt growth. SSRI antidepressants work no better than an enhanced placebo in all but the worst of cases. On top of this ineffectiveness, these drugs have numerous bad effects that have nothing to do with alleviating the problem. I don’t think of the rich as “over-taxed”.  The rich would be, as they are now, drugging the poor. Over reliance on drugs breeds a chemically dependent, and weakened,  population. I think we’ve got more than enough junkies in this world than we will ever need regardless of whether the dope they take is prescription or illicit. I’m not averse to seeing a positive power in negative emotions. I think there is a purpose to those emotions millions and millions of years of evolution are behind, and I would not have those emotions chemically removed. Stepford wife, or Suffragette, in my honest and educated opinion chemical compounds are more likely to produce cancer than they are to elicit good health. Good health comes of clean living, and this clean living means living clean of chemical pollutants. It matters little whether those pollutants come from a smoke stack or from a pill box they are chemical compounds added to, and not produced naturally by, the body.

1. Is the term “Morality pill” a misnomer? Is it a useful or congenial term to use? I would say no, the term itself is causing friction and distaste and suspicion, even here?—- And there can be no magic pill or comprehensive quick fix that can deliver morality, as this IS a social variable?—- This “one size fits all” treatment does not sound feasible.. Yet, if treatments, (pills), medication, were proposed in more derivative form and prescripted from pharmacies under individual healthcare guidance, (for example seratonin and oxytocin supplements), and nurtured like any other progressive healthcare policy, then folks just may be a little more open to possibilities?—- IF? That is the ideal that is really being proposed here?———2. NO! We don’t want blind additives to foods and drinking water, because this IS LIBERAL oppression! And thank heavens there are conservatives that will oppose such…

3. The point was well made above, yet overlooked?—- increased empathy is most likely NOT the magic cure for humanity’s social ills—- a psychopath/narcissist has highly tuned empathy that aids manipulation and likely drives motives and passions, (for harm).——by applying widespread supplements for empathy, we may just be in danger in creating and nurturing new generations of highly tuned psychopaths?——may I draw your attention to the importance of “compassion” once more? (there is no pill for this either)

The debate here has improved. Earlier it was just silly. I like the point that Cygnus made where (s)he said “there can be no magic pill or comprehensive quick fix that can deliver morality”. If a safe (no side effects) pill was successful it would likely be narrow in its benefits to the individual. It seems entirely sensible to believe that no magic pill could be invented. This is a similiar debate to the one about cognitive/intelligence enhancement. In that debate I ask “what type of intelligence enhancement?” Someone with great mathematical intelligence may possess no social intelligence and therefore also be a thug. And someone with great social intelligence may possess no mathematical intelligence.
On questions of enhancement the future is still very unclear… other than to say that access to information will be dramatically improved.

it was presented as a hypothetical in the beginning. So saying it couldn’t happen is simply to not participate in the debate.

Which is truly fine. The debate is a shameful one. That it was even conceived is a perfect example of the very immorality the hypothetical morality-pill was to hypothetically address!!!

how perfectly ironic!

@SU—you very much “cherry-picked” that wikipedia definition of psychopathology to bolster your argument, leaving out everything in wikipedia’s definition that would damage your position.

Correctly reporting to the readership here what psychopathy is would reveal that the condition is intrinsically anti-social.

@Mary. I am issuing you a second reminder. Your post above insisting that the position you disagree with is “shameful” and “hypocritical” is a personal attack on those who disagree with you, not a respectful critique of their position. There won’t be a third reminder; I just won’t let your post through.

thank you for the warning, hank.

i wonder if it went to a vote, how many would find my statement to be intended as a personal attack? I can understand that it may have felt that way. But it certainly was not intended to do anything other than express my own passion for human dignity and the freedom of ALL beings to express as LIFE informs. Not bow to the self-appointed judges and juries that rule between the ears of their neighbors.

i repeat, i do not take issue with people participating in the poll. We are free beings, each traversing a trajectory through a life that is utterly ephemeral and unique. Who am i to judge? We are all brothers and sisters, lost in this maze, doing the best we can.

but i recognize the forked serpent’s tongue of judgment when i see it, and do admit that i felt sorely affronted by the nature of both the spurious ‘poll’ and the lack of appreciation expressed for its alarmingly pathological roots. ESPECIALLY in a forum promoting ethical behavior.

i personally see ‘hypocritical’ as a descriptive rather than pejorative term (as i do also the term ‘fascist’) ‘Shameful’ as used referred to the debate, not to those who participated. I call it shameful because it addresses a shameful thing: the human tendency to impose Rules of Order upon others to suit themselves, without any depth of inquiry regarding its roots in a foul premise that would if played out compel conformity.

my position is that human freedom and dignity are more important than a sense of moral superiority. I vastly apologize if that offends you. But only for the discomfort my truth may bring. Not for the speaking of it.

@hank

I did not cherry pick the definition of psychopathology to prove my point.

You mention the Wikipedia definition where I used the first sentence of the definition. I used the first sentence because that is usually the most indicative of the definition, it is the key definition. You also ignore how I used the Science Daily definition in addition the the Wikipedia definition, and again I didn’t cherry pick, I simply used the key definition, this first sentence: “Psychopathology is a term which refers to either the study of mental illness or mental distress or the manifestation of behaviours and experiences which may be indicative of mental illness or psychological impairment.”

Hank you say Psychopathology is anti-social, well then I wonder what is social. A Government that has killed (via the Iraq war fought on false pretences) more innocent people than all the psychopaths combined. The Iraq sanctions killed 500,000 children (unicef estimates) but even if you chose a lower estimate the number is 170,00 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Estimates_of_deaths_due_to_sanctions

Many politicians think #OWS protesters are anti-social. Some Vitenam War protesters were rumoured to have been silenced via false accusations and detainment regarding their questionable sanity.

The definition of mental illness and anti-social behaviour is not as clear cut as you think.

Some of the posts on here demonstrate the need for a morality pill that is effective and works. No wonder there are wars! It is ironic that those who oppose the pill (even if it was effective and safe) are the same ones who demonstrate the need for it.

Paul, would you care to define ‘morality’ before your finger pokes your own eye out? You paint human individuation with a very black brush. As if how many billions are to possess your unique conditioning? And are here to please you? To not ruffle your feathers? To NOT shake up that little box of the ordinary in which humans typically get stuck, until trauma or near-death impales them on the truth of their folly?

Perhaps the discomfort of allowing different perspectives pains you? Which gives rise to a desire for others to take a pill to ease your distress?

It’s very confusing! And sad. And amusing, to see perfectly well-meaning human beings force their will on others ‘for their own good.’

The definition of morality is a great problem.

The Christian fundamentalist group “God Hates Fags” believes hatred of homosexuals is moral, they have minimal compassion for immoral sinners. Would the morality pill emphasize their bigotry? I think it could easily do so. How would a morality pill determine morality, would laws be blindly applied thereby punishing OWS protesters, or would the subjective definition of individual morality be reinforced?

Considering the nature of crime relating to Morality Pills, in a discussion on reddit someone said only selfish crimes will be prohibited by the Morality Pill.

I ask if it was selfish when the Suffragette Emily Davison threw herself under the King’s horse: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/davison_emily.shtml

Various politicians and commentators have accused OWS protesters of being selfish. Causing a crime nearly always upsets someone (all crimes are somewhat anti-social), even in the case of OWS, so if someone is upset it seems selfish to intentionally upset someone.

Emily Davison upset a lot of people when she threw herself under the King’s horse http://youtu.be/siZ1rcIECdk therefore considering her selfishness I am sure Morality Pills if mandatory at the time would have stopped her taking the action she did.

Hank Pellissier mentions anti-social behaviour regarding the morality pill, he wrote: “Correctly reporting to the readership here what psychopathy is would reveal that the condition is intrinsically anti-social.”

I am very sure the King and the Government deemed the death of Emily to be anti-social. Christians are firmly convinced homosexuality and same sex marriage are immoral and anti-social. Catholics think wearing condoms is immoral, sinful. Donald Rusmsfeld had a clearly moral view of the righteousness regarding invading Iraq

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1184546/Donald-Rumsfelds-holy-war-How-President-Bushs-Iraq-briefings-came-quotes-Bible.html

Bush apparently believed he was on a mission from God, a moral crusade: ‘God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq’ Bush http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

It is possible the Morality Pill could enhance the morals of groups such as God Hates Fags. Maybe the morality pill will stop all Catholics from wearing condoms because they will be incapable of rebelling against the instructions of the Pope.

Hatred of homosexuals is a moral imperative for some people.

My point is that morality and crimes are very subjective. Many people think their Governments are far worse criminals than the actual so-called “criminals”. Would the morality pill blindly apply the law or would it apply the personal subjective idea of morality for each individual? Either application of morality is very problematic.

If a person is raised by Christian parents and the Morality Pill is mandatory would the child then be doomed to eternal acceptance of Creationism because the theory of evolution is immoral?

Christians really do think their bigoted views are moral therefore how would the morality pill alter their brains, would they become super-bigots utterly unshakable in their deluded sense of righteous morality.

Paul Budding wants to apply the Morality Pill to some commentators here in this IEET discussion. He states: “Some of the posts on here demonstrate the need for a morality pill that is effective and works. No wonder there are wars! It is ironic that those who oppose the pill (even if it was effective and safe) are the same ones who demonstrate the need for it.” Paul’s hypothetical usage of the Morality Pill to change views he disagrees with is the essence of the evil regarding Morality Pills. Who decides what is moral. Why is Paul or anyone else the absolute expert on morality? What right does anyone have to impose our personal morals onto others? Paul wants to change via medicinal intervention the minds of people who disagree with his viewpoint. The people who oppose the Morality Pill would hypothetically (but probably not in reality) want to use medical intervention to correct the illiberal (fascist) brains of people support the Morality Pill.

The Morality Pill is a blueprint for slavery.

Sigularity Utopia - Thank you!

Beautifully written. And much better at getting to the point than i am on my BEST day!