True, it would be more significant if people voluntarily stopped doing terrible things to each other, so it would be best of all if free will was retained. That would mean a lot about how humankind had finally grown up and learned to get along with itself. If humankind was artificially forced to be nice, the event wouldn't be meaningful in that way.
However, it would be a surprise if that ever happened, so maybe it would be morally acceptable to use a miraculous device that makes people be nice to each other, even though it does limit free will. If such a device existed, it might be the only possible way to make everyone get along. To stop killing each other. To survive. Is survival more or less important than free will?
A balance could be struck. People may be more likely to be nice voluntarily if they're not being pressured by other people who are doing terrible things all around them. (Being harassed, terrorized, or pushed to act in self-defense or revenge.) It might be sufficient to only use the miracle nice-making device on some people. Then the other people might start being nice out of their own free will, not out of fear of the device, but because they're no longer so much in fear of everyone else. It would only be hard to know who should and shouldn't have their wills influenced.
Maybe if the miracle nice-making device was used on everyone in the world, but only for one generation, it would be enough for the next generation to come out of it as voluntarily nice people. They would have been raised in that context only. I guess there could still be some radicals in the second generation who would proceed to be terrible after all, but one whole generation of universally nice people would still have made a huge cultural impact. A significant paradigm shift.
The miraculous nice-making device
True, it would be more significant if people voluntarily stopped doing terrible things to each other, so it would be best of all if free will was retained. That would mean a lot about how humankind had finally grown up and learned to get along with itself. If humankind was artificially forced to be nice, the event wouldn't be meaningful in that way.
However, it would be a surprise if that ever happened, so maybe it would be morally acceptable to use a miraculous device that makes people be nice to each other, even though it does limit free will. If such a device existed, it might be the only possible way to make everyone get along. To stop killing each other. To survive. Is survival more or less important than free will?
A balance could be struck. People may be more likely to be nice voluntarily if they're not being pressured by other people who are doing terrible things all around them. (Being harassed, terrorized, or pushed to act in self-defense or revenge.) It might be sufficient to only use the miracle nice-making device on some people. Then the other people might start being nice out of their own free will, not out of fear of the device, but because they're no longer so much in fear of everyone else. It would only be hard to know who should and shouldn't have their wills influenced.
Maybe if the miracle nice-making device was used on everyone in the world, but only for one generation, it would be enough for the next generation to come out of it as voluntarily nice people. They would have been raised in that context only. I guess there could still be some radicals in the second generation who would proceed to be terrible after all, but one whole generation of universally nice people would still have made a huge cultural impact. A significant paradigm shift.