Freedom of will versus the prevention of atrocities

[kajarainbow]

If you had a method of making people nice, or at least making them not do the really terrible things that happen everyday (carnage and suffering around the world), is it morally acceptable to preemptively use it on everyone and sundry? Is it okay to use it only on proven offenders?

Does the inviolability of their psyches outweigh making the human race far better off?

Comments

[kajarainbow.livejournal.com]

There're really people that suggest genocide as a solution?

[relee.livejournal.com]

Yeah a lot of people think that genocide would be a good way to end strife in the third world. Not just religious folks either. The logic is that with less people there would be more resources to go around, and the survivors would be able to thrive where the masses are being tortured.

Mostly people urge contraceptive use, but it doesn't work, and the population keeps going up with the resources dwindle. Some folks feel that since they won't listen to reason they have to be put down, like animals, for their own good (or at least the good of whoever survives). Most people who would suggest genocide are patient enough to wait for a pandemic to wipe everybody out, but some of them also support the idea of intentionally causing a pandemic.


I said 'most people seem to reccomend' earlier but that was a bit of an exaggeration. I do hear people suggest that almost anytime the subject comes up, but few are really serious... I hope.


Really do hear some horror stories from around the world though. I'm not sure if the children hate-conscription is worse or if the prevailing superstition that raping a little girl will act as a panacea and cure your aids is worse, though. Brr. *shiver*

[alfador-fox.livejournal.com]

"For the good of all of us...except the ones who are dead."