Ethics for mentalists

[Wanderer]

Spurred by the subthread in the ethics quandaries for superheroes, I think it is maybe best to give the issue its own place. So What kind of ethical guidelines do you think proper for the use of mind influence powers ? One can either debate the IC worldview of his preferred (or late) characters, or the hypothetical POV of "me, with superpowers".

 

For the hypothetical typical case, I suggest a character that has the whole typical deal of mental control-ish powers: Mind Control, Mental Illusions, Telepathy, Superhuman EGO and PRE (and/or superhuman Interaction skills). He may or may not have Ego Attacks, BOECV Attacks, Mental Transform, and other oddball related powers like Drains of Mental Characteristics, illusionary Shape Shifts or Invisibility, etc. It is also assumed that the character has a decent array of other Attack, Defense, and Movement powers of appropriate mental-ish SFX (psionic, mystic, etc.) nature that enable him to be an effective fighter, even if one can certainly debate the case where Mental Control powers are the only effective weapon in the character arsenal (even if I doubt most GMs would welcome such a character, as he wavers between being marginal and abusive in combat).

 

Only a request, a little privilege I take as thread starter since I'm sick of discussing the topic elsewhere: please, please only refer to the "rape" word, concept, and metaphor, if you really must, only when outright, clear violence, or cohercion of gravity comparable to the actual threat of physical violence, is used to override and violate free will. In any other scenario, please state that in your opinion, the character would/should not use mental control/influence, but do not state the situation as "rape". But I prefer to avoid using the "R" concept entirely.

 

I suggest a brief guideline for opening the debate: Powers that completely abolish free will (Mind Control, Mental Illusions, Telepathy) are the ethical equivalent of lethal attacks (HKA, RKA, Drain Body) and should be used as such. Godlike PRE (50+) is a borderline case. Ego Attacks, BOECV attacks, superhuman PRE (25-45), superhuman proficience in Interaction skills may be used in combat as freely as Normal Attacks, and in non-combat situations as much as one likes, or as much freely as real-world people with exceptional charisma, sex-appeal, and persuasion use their gifts. Mental Transform is the moral equivalent of killing a character, or at least performing a heart transplant.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

I suggest a brief guideline for opening the debate: Powers that completely abolish free will (Mind Control' date=' Mental Illusions, Telepathy) are the ethical equivalent of lethal attacks (HKA, RKA, Drain Body) and should be used as such.[/quote']

 

I disagree. This implies being shot in the head, and waking up under armed guard in the hospital, in critical condition with a 50/50 chance of pulling through, is equivalent to coming out of the belief you've gone home to sleep and waking up on a cot in a prison cell.

 

Even normal attacks may leave the target battered, brused and possibly even dead or dying. Mind Control and mental Illusions are a non-lethal attack form, something law enforcement has been searching for over decades. Even tasers carry risk. Mental powers cause the target to act under his own volition - no risk of injury (doesn't even fall down, and possibky bump his head!).

[Wanderer]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

I disagree. This implies being shot in the head' date=' and waking up under armed guard in the hospital, in critical condition with a 50/50 chance of pulling through, is equivalent to coming out of the belief you've gone home to sleep and waking up on a cot in a prison cell. [/quote']

 

I suggested mind control = lethal force because many people would actually risk their life rather than having their free will as violated so radically as these powers do, and/or they would perceive such a violation as serious as being shot. True, they are of short duration, that's why I said "use of lethal force" (you can be shot in an arm or leg, which IMO is the level of lethal force most closely resembling MC or MI, rather than a wound really endangering life), and not "shoot to kill", which would be Mental Transform (since many people would rather prefer to die, rather than having their personality changed against their will).

 

Even normal attacks may leave the target battered, brused and possibly even dead or dying. Mind Control and mental Illusions are a non-lethal attack form, something law enforcement has been searching for over decades. Even tasers carry risk. Mental powers cause the target to act under his own volition - no risk of injury (doesn't even fall down, and possibky bump his head!).

 

What are you suggesting here better resembles EGO Attack, BOECV Attack, or Drain Stun. Non-lethal incapacitation, without messing with free will.

[Springald Jack]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

I suggested mind control = lethal force because many people would actually risk their life rather than having their free will as violated so radically as these powers do, and/or they would perceive such a violation as serious as being shot. .

 

One consequence of this ethical position is that all of a sudden Darth Vader and Obi-Wan might start to look a lot alike. Ben's pretty Non-chalant about the mind-tricks, just as Vader is with the Lethal Force. Of course in the Cantina Ben was pretty non-chalant about the Lethal Force too...

[Mutant for Hire]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

I think people are getting a little too hyped up about mental powers. Most of the powers surrounding mentalists can be duplicated, if somewhat crudely, by alternate means:

 

1. Telepathy

Force-feeding someone drugs and getting them to spill their guts about things they would never say otherwise

2. Mind Control

Force-feeding someone drugs and talking them into doing things they wouldn't do normally

 

And so on and so forth. So the question becomes when are said non-psionic methods ethical and when are they not.

[Arac-4105]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

Just my $0.02, but I really don't think there's any "ethical" rationale that can be applied to mental powers. Once you go violating someone's privacy or overriding their self control, ethics go straight into the circular file.

Morals, however, are still firmly in play. Perhaps even moreso.

[Hermit]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

a related thread kind of sorta from a while back

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22595

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

I suggested mind control = lethal force because many people would actually risk their life rather than having their free will as violated so radically as these powers do' date=' and/or they would perceive such a violation as serious as being shot. True, they are of short duration, that's why I said "use of lethal force" (you can be shot in an arm or leg, which IMO is the level of lethal force most closely resembling MC or MI, rather than a wound really endangering life), and not "shoot to kill", which would be Mental Transform (since many people would rather prefer to die, rather than having their personality changed against their will). [/quote']

 

The Mental Transform I agree with. This is akin to forcing lobomieson violent offenders, castration on sex offenders or even a death penalty given the body lives on, but not the person, if a new personality overwrites the old one.

 

But I think there's a big difference from "shot in the leg", which can and will stll be fatal in some cases, cause permanent injury in many others, and require long-term recuperation for most of the "lucky" ones. Mind Control and mental illusions are both short-term, with no long-lasting ill effects.

 

Given a real-life "hypnogun" which would cause individuals exposed to it to confess their crimes and co-oeratively surrender to lawful authorities, do you really think there would be a huge public outcry to stick with slugthrowers and nightsticks?

 

What are you suggesting here better resembles EGO Attack' date=' BOECV Attack, or Drain Stun. Non-lethal incapacitation, without messing with free will.[/quote']

 

That's what the research has always centered around because we don't know of any practical way of building the "hypnogun". even then, the person KO'd non-lethally can still crack his head open on the sidewalk. Much better if he just calmly says "Sure, officer, put the cuffs on me and let's hustle off to jail".

 

You've somehow made the decision that it's more "ethical" to shove the criminal into the cell against his will than to have a means which renders him briefly willing to walk into the cell.

[Lucius]

Ethics for mentalists

 

Given a real-life "hypnogun" which would cause individuals exposed to it to confess their crimes and co-oeratively surrender to lawful authorities' date=' do you really think there would be a huge public outcry to stick with slugthrowers and nightsticks?.[/quote']

 

Yes. There would be, and should be, such an outcry in such a situation. Especially in the US, where the right to refuse to incriminate yourself is written into the Constitution.

 

At least, there'd be an outcry until all the outcriers got zapped with the hypnogun.

 

You've somehow made the decision that it's more "ethical" to shove the criminal into the cell against his will than to have a means which renders him briefly willing to walk into the cell.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think over-riding someone's free will is necessarily more ethical than "shoving them into the cell" physically. More practical if it could be done, maybe, not not more ethical.

 

And to whoever made the distinction between ethics and morals: No two people define these terms in the same way. What exactly did YOU mean by it?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary asks at one end if we should have a thread on "The Mentalities of Ethicists" and responds at the other that that's what we really have here anyway.....

[Whitewings]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

The obvious knee jerk reaction is "It's never ethical to use any mental power at any time for any purpose." I don't like this answer. In fact, I think it's a ridiculous position, as stupid as Piers Anthony's hypothetical example of Hitler's son being immoral and unethical if he called off the Holocaust, thereby going against his late father's wishes.

 

Personally, I would say that as a general rule mental powers can be employed ethically if they bring about either as much harm or less, or as much good or mer, than conventional responces. If a guy pulls a gun on you, and you knock him cold with an Ego Attack, that's doing less harm than a normal attack. It's acceptable. On the other side, someone has a number of purely psychological problem. You use Mental Transform as a form of super-therapy. This does at least as much good as conventional therapy. This is acceptable. A guy uses Mind Control to get a girl into his bed when she would otherwise have no interest in him? Unless (in Champions terms) he gets the +20 for "think it was your own idea," he's just done her a considerable harm, and least equivalent to getting her roaring drenk for the same purpose. Not acceptable. If he does get the +20, it's more like being super-persuasive - but it's still pretty tacky.

 

Oh, and I don't see any real need for special ethical considerations on the use of ultra-high PRE or EGO.

[Wanderer]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

Yes. There would be, and should be, such an outcry in such a situation. Especially in the US, where the right to refuse to incriminate yourself is written into the Constitution.

 

At least, there'd be an outcry until all the outcriers got zapped with the hypnogun.

 

In such a case, heroic superhuman freedom fighters would surely arise to fight and topple the tyrannical government which is treading on personal liberties under the excuse of fighting crime

 

And they are much more experienced and equipped to resist mental control than Joe "Bill of Rights" Public. Mind control from supervillains or mind control from the jackbooted secret police, where's the difference ?

[Victim]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

 

Personally, I would say that as a general rule mental powers can be employed ethically if they bring about either as much harm or less, or as much good or mer, than conventional responces. If a guy pulls a gun on you, and you knock him cold with an Ego Attack, that's doing less harm than a normal attack. It's acceptable. On the other side, someone has a number of purely psychological problem. You use Mental Transform as a form of super-therapy. This does at least as much good as conventional therapy. This is acceptable. A guy uses Mind Control to get a girl into his bed when she would otherwise have no interest in him? Unless (in Champions terms) he gets the +20 for "think it was your own idea," he's just done her a considerable harm, and least equivalent to getting her roaring drenk for the same purpose. Not acceptable. If he does get the +20, it's more like being super-persuasive - but it's still pretty tacky.

 

Oh, and I don't see any real need for special ethical considerations on the use of ultra-high PRE or EGO.

 

I don't see how getting the +20 makes Mind Control any more acceptable. Then you're only conditioning the subject to accept and rationalize your control. It's like saying kidnapping is more acceptable if the victims suffer the Stockholm Syndrome.

[Whitewings]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

I don't see how getting the +20 makes Mind Control any more acceptable. Then you're only conditioning the subject to accept and rationalize your control. It's like saying kidnapping is more acceptable if the victims suffer the Stockholm Syndrome.

Not quite. If, in this example, he get the +20, she is not harmed by the experience - or rather, she's not harmed any more than she would be by any other bad date. Do you now claim it is unethical to be a bad date?

[Springald Jack]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

Not quite. If' date=' in this example, he get the +20, she is not harmed by the experience - or rather, she's not harmed any more than she would be by any other bad date. Do you now claim it is unethical to be a bad date?[/quote']

 

Not all ethics work on the basis of strict more good than harm. That is Utilitarianism and is not acceptable to all ethicists. Furthermore many people would regard usurping someone's will as harm.

 

In Angel Season 4 a being emerges who can bring a happy peaceful coexistence to the whole world. The catch is two-fold 1. She brings it about by a form of mind control. 2. She eats a relatively small number of people. She clearly does more good than harm for ther world by your standards, everyone under her sway is happy, even the people she eats never suffer.

 

And yet once broken free of the spell the protagonists go to great lengths to stop her, far more because of the mind control than the killing.

[Whitewings]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

Not all ethics work on the basis of strict more good than harm. That is Utilitarianism and is not acceptable to all ethicists. Furthermore many people would regard usurping someone's will as harm.

 

In Angel Season 4 a being emerges who can bring a happy peaceful coexistence to the whole world. The catch is two-fold 1. She brings it about by a form of mind control. 2. She eats a relatively small number of people. She clearly does more good than harm for ther world by your standards, everyone under her sway is happy, even the people she eats never suffer.

 

And yet once broken free of the spell the protagonists go to great lengths to stop her, far more because of the mind control than the killing.

That's true. Let me rephrase things slightly: I'm not saying that the aforementioned use of Misd Control is ethical, just that i'm not entirely sure it *isn't* ethical. I am, however, quite sure it's sleazy.

[Black Rose]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

I don't see how getting the +20 makes Mind Control any more acceptable. Then you're only conditioning the subject to accept and rationalize your control. It's like saying kidnapping is more acceptable if the victims suffer the Stockholm Syndrome.

[snark]Well, it's certainly more acceptable by the kidnapped people in question.[/snark]

 

At the +20 "subject thinks it was their own idea" stage, the only time they're hurt is when you tell them so. You need an observer to recognize that there is anything wrong happening at all. That, to me, is part of what makes MC so nasty. It's one thing to pull the "punch your buddy" trick, quite another to make subtle, long-term changes. As far as I'm concerned, the single most evil (and not in the cool way, either) power in the game is Mental Transform.

[Springald Jack]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

As far as I'm concerned' date=' the single most evil (and not in the cool way, either) power in the game is Mental Transform.[/quote']

 

I'd say it was probably the most potentially evil power. At the same time I wouldn't say that Mental Transform is innately evil in all cases. A Mental Transform that cured or could cure "Psych Lim: Chronic Depression" could be used for very good purposes.

[transmetahuman]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

Spurred by the subthread in the ethics quandaries for superheroes, I think it is maybe best to give the issue its own place. So What kind of ethical guidelines do you think proper for the use of mind influence powers ? One can either debate the IC worldview of his preferred (or late) characters, or the hypothetical POV of "me, with superpowers".

 

For the hypothetical typical case, I suggest a character that has the whole typical deal of mental control-ish powers: Mind Control, Mental Illusions, Telepathy, Superhuman EGO and PRE (and/or superhuman Interaction skills). He may or may not have Ego Attacks, BOECV Attacks, Mental Transform, and other oddball related powers like Drains of Mental Characteristics, illusionary Shape Shifts or Invisibility, etc. It is also assumed that the character has a decent array of other Attack, Defense, and Movement powers of appropriate mental-ish SFX (psionic, mystic, etc.) nature that enable him to be an effective fighter, even if one can certainly debate the case where Mental Control powers are the only effective weapon in the character arsenal (even if I doubt most GMs would welcome such a character, as he wavers between being marginal and abusive in combat).

 

Only a request, a little privilege I take as thread starter since I'm sick of discussing the topic elsewhere: please, please only refer to the "rape" word, concept, and metaphor, if you really must, only when outright, clear violence, or cohercion of gravity comparable to the actual threat of physical violence, is used to override and violate free will. In any other scenario, please state that in your opinion, the character would/should not use mental control/influence, but do not state the situation as "rape". But I prefer to avoid using the "R" concept entirely.

 

I suggest a brief guideline for opening the debate: Powers that completely abolish free will (Mind Control, Mental Illusions, Telepathy) are the ethical equivalent of lethal attacks (HKA, RKA, Drain Body) and should be used as such. Godlike PRE (50+) is a borderline case. Ego Attacks, BOECV attacks, superhuman PRE (25-45), superhuman proficience in Interaction skills may be used in combat as freely as Normal Attacks, and in non-combat situations as much as one likes, or as much freely as real-world people with exceptional charisma, sex-appeal, and persuasion use their gifts. Mental Transform is the moral equivalent of killing a character, or at least performing a heart transplant.

I'm the guy who stated passionately in another thread that I personally would do my best to kill Charlie Xavier as soon as I found out what he was capable of, so you might guess I'll be one of the hardliners. Apparently, I'm not. The crux of the matter for me is long-term and undetectable versus short term and self-evidently coercive. Maybe I've just had too much experience with drug, alcohol, and brain-chemistry induced (or at least influenced) mental states (edit: not to mention HORMONES, jeez), but I don't see short-term free will as being all that holy a thing. Coercing someone into giving up and going to jail is still coercion whether you use mental powers or threat of violence. The ethics of the act, to me, depend on all the other factors that go into deciding whether coercion is an acceptable response.

 

To answer the original question... if I, personally, had such powers: I'd do my damnedest to make sure no one ever found out; I'd probably succumb to the incredible temptation to use them; and the interplay between those two driving urges would probably lead me to what I consider unethical use - depriving the victim of the ability to know why he made the decisions he did. If any of you are supernatural beings, lurking on this thread in order to decide who to grant mind control powers to, please count me out.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

I think we can assume a right to mental intergrity, free of outside influence. Thus, unless you have a reason to exert psionic force on someone's mind, it is wrong to use mental powers on them.

 

This can be extended to most forms of Super PRE;

 

-Psionic PRE = Straight Mental Powers.

-Pheromone PRE = Mind Affecting Chemicals - regardless of whether it can happen in the real world, most morals have ruled on this.

-I am a GOD = Mystic Mental Powers

 

If the high PRE is from mundane means and is not the result of the application of some kind of superpower, it's not undue influence (if you can't control your mental controlling, then that obviously mitigates wrongdoing... but consciously overriding someone's ability to make decisions is coercive).

 

(Thought to keep in mind: Terrifying someone or brainwashing someone can be considered wrong in out world.)

 

 

However, heroic usage of mental powers usually bypasses that right fairly easily:

 

-Combat usage is fine; protection of others and so forth.

-Using it to prevent non-violent crime (put down the jewelry) should also be fine; it's no different from using normal physical coercion to apprehend someone - a key there is that using it AFTER a crime has been commited is okey, incidently.

-Permission. Overriding your will is like being manhandled, inviting someone into your psyche doesn't have the 'damage' issue; sort of like agreeing to wrestle or some such. (Obviously, being careless here could be criminal).

 

Summary: Exerting Psionic Force is most directly analogous to manhandling someone... long term it can be considered analogous either to physical discipline (if done 'right') or torture and brainwashing (if done with malice).

 

And the 'harm' done by mind control should be weighed as considered by a normal person who has not been tampered with... this rules OUT 'careful' tampering that leaves them happy to have been attacked, but allows for repair of mental trauma.

[Mutant for Hire]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

Charles Xavier has used his power in a very immoral fashion at times, casually rewriting memories when it suits him. I understand in the Ultimates they have gone more into this angle, making him a more sinister figure than others. In some ways though, I don't find the Ultimates character that much worse, it's more like they are a bit more honest of the morality of the Professor's powers.

 

Frankly, if I could go back and alter Charles Xavier's powers from the start, I would have made him more of a precognative and clairvoyant, a seer who could see into other times and places, possible futures, into the present as well, with an instinctive sense of where the trouble spots were. That would have given him a handy plot device to know where to send the X-Men, and it would have been a less morally corrupting power as well. Well, there is investing in the stock market, but someone has to pay the bills.

 

I wouldn't have removed the character of an uber-powerful telepath from the X-Men, but I would have made him an enemy of the X-Men, one who believed in the natural superiority of telepaths over everyone else. They would not have necessarily been strictly in favor of mutant telepaths, any paranormal telepath would have been acceptable to them, but they had to be telepaths and heirarchy was determined by strenght. Good telepaths do exist but struggle with the temptations of their powers.

 

Honestly, when I invent a superhero universe I have a hard time not making psi detectors and psionic shielding available, even to civilians. It's just too essential to keep telepaths from sleazing their way to the top easily. Vegas would heavily invest in psi detectors and biometric scanners, to the point that a psionic can't even walk into one of those places without being asked to leave. At once. Even approaching the building would get a polite intercept near the door. Which leads to the scenario of psionic gambling joints where 'anything goes' is the rule, but I digress.

 

Still, not all forms of mind control are inherently unethical. Something else to put in perspective: when a police officer holds a gun at you and threatens to shoot unless you do a certain thing, that is coercive behavior. Obviously, police officers are authorized to use coercive behavior in certain ways. There are limits on what they can make a person do that way, obviously, but there are cases where they can.

 

I would view it this way:

 

Alterations of personality and memory - always bad, period. Unless of course the person in question is certifiably insane and the alterations of personality are something to restore them to sanity. Of course this leads to dangerous definitions of what constitutes sane, but there are extreme cases where the issues are relatively clear. In those cases, consent by the guardian or someone with power of attorney is needed.

 

Temporary alterations of thought - the ethics of said behavior transfer to the person controlling, and in all cases this is a lesser of two evils scenario. If the other person is clearly engaging in life threatening or potentially life threatening behavior, actions taken to prevent the threatening of said life is acceptable. In short, if it is ethically permissable to aim a gun at a person and order them to do something, then it is probably the same to use mind control to effect a temporary alteration to achieve the same result.

 

A key point here as always is to focus on the effect, not the power. Look at alternate ways to achieve the same general type of effect, and you start to see that the issue isn't always as simple as mind control = evil.

[nexus]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

That's true. Let me rephrase things slightly: I'm not saying that the aforementioned use of Misd Control is ethical' date=' just that i'm not entirely sure it *isn't* ethical. I am, however, quite sure it's sleazy.[/quote']

 

It isn't ethical, well I suppose it could be if the mentalist's personal ethics allow for it but I doubt it would be considered a crime, immoral/unethical. Morals and Personal ethics (which this situation seems to be dealing with unless we're talking about a professional telepaths guild or something similar) are pretty much the same thing.

 

The mentalist is still removing the target's freedom of choice. Just because they THINK its their idea it wasn't really. Its not really effective persuasion, its more akin to brainwashing. The target doesn't naturally change their mind, they just think they did. It could still cause just as much emtional trauma. What if the victim in question was in another relationship or had moral restriction on sex outside of a marriage? I'm also not convinced this is somehow "less harmful" to the target. The +20 doesn't mean they automatically mean the target likes "their" decision or won't regret it, just that they think its their idea. And this "choice" can be completely opposed to their own values and personality if the mentalist is powerful enough.

 

A married woman "seduced" in such a manner is going to feel the same guilt and anguish as if she violated her vows of her own choice, except in this case it really wasn't. Unless the mentalist made further alterations beyond the basic command "Have sex with me" unless she was inclined to adultery anyway.

 

I do think a better argument could be made by considering the degree of mind control required. Was it something that target wouldn't mind doing anyway or something that they were violently opposed too? That seems like it would be more open to debate. Is is unethical to "nudge" someone into doing something they would have done, not minded doing anyway?

 

And of course the issue of special effects can also come into play. Mind Control can be defined as "Super Persuasion". I was assuming the "classic" idea of mind control in my argument.

 

Edit: Edited to conform to the thread guidelines.

[nexus]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

Not quite. If' date=' in this example, he get the +20, she is not harmed by the experience - or rather, she's not harmed any more than she would be by any other bad date. Do you now claim it is unethical to be a bad date?[/quote']

 

Except its a "bad date" the target presumably wouldn't have gone on in the first place given their free will.

 

If I con someone out of their money and get to make the "choice" to give it to me I have commited a crime even though the target is still in complete control of their faculities unlike a victom of mind control, even with a +20. It was their decision. With mind control it never was, they just think it is.

 

The argument for it being "ethical" seems to more or less "What they don't know, won't hurt them" so its ok. I'm not sure that holds water.

[nexus]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

[snark]Well' date=' it's certainly more acceptable by the kidnapped people in question.[/snark']

 

At the +20 "subject thinks it was their own idea" stage, the only time they're hurt is when you tell them so. You need an observer to recognize that there is anything wrong happening at all. That, to me, is part of what makes MC so nasty. It's one thing to pull the "punch your buddy" trick, quite another to make subtle, long-term changes. As far as I'm concerned, the single most evil (and not in the cool way, either) power in the game is Mental Transform.

 

I think the issue here is does the +20 level of Mind control make you LIKE the choice you just made or just think its your idea. To move away from the rather inflammatory Mind Control "Seduction" I'll throw out this examople. If someone is Mind Controlled to shoot their mother in face and the Mind Controller gets +20, does that mean the person in question calmly except that he just suddenly decided to murder his mother for no known reason or is some reeason for it crafted in his mind, or does it just seem to him like he had a psychotic break and shot his mother?

[Markdoc]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

Well mental powers covers a wide range of things. For ego blast, it's not an issue (at least for me). You zap someone, they fall down. It's no different from a taser, except it's safer. So, you can use it in the same situation as a taser. Zapping a criminal to protect yourself or others or in the course of your legally mandated duties (for example, to restrain a violently agitated mental patient) is OK. Zapping your kid brother because he he's making that noise again or the guy who got the last parking spot at the mall - not OK.

 

On the other hand, mind control/mental illusions fall into the same category as coercive behavior. Mind-controlling a girl into sleeping with you is not OK, +20 effect or not, any more than slipping GBH or XTC into her drink is. Both kinds of behaviour could get you a rape charge (the legal, physical kind) if you get caught.

 

Mind-controlling a villain to surrender in combat is almost certainly OK - the legal/moral precedent would be the use of lethal force. Mind-controlling a villain *out*of*combat* is almost certainly not OK - any more than shooting him out of combat with an M40 would be OK. Saying "he's a villain" is not a legal defence against assault.

 

Likewise mental surgery performed for fun and profit puts you on the side of the bad guys - just as pumping someone up with drugs to alter their behaviour is currently illegal.

 

There is an exception, however: if the person being targetted is certifably insane (the Joker springs to mind) then mental surgery performed under a court order and proper supervision might be OK. After all, electroshock and mandated drug treatment is OK under those situations - but would land you in serious trouble if you start applying them at your own discretion.

 

Where things get icky though - and I think what *would* cause an outcry is that mental powers are invisble to most people. What happens when a senator stands up and says he only voted for the Iraq war because he was mind-controlled? Or a convicted multiple rapist claims it was all because of psychic surgery he received years ago? When a mentallist stands trial for "mind-assault" and claims in his defence that he did it because he could see that the target was planning a terrorist action - but never did anything because of the mind control. The problem is there's no way our current system could cope with those kinds of claims. You'd need to get other mentalists in to test the claim and at that point court judgements start coming down to one person's unsupported word. "Yeah, he's guilty. I can see it in his mind". Would you like to see that in court cases?

 

brrr.

 

cheers, Mark

[Wanderer]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

I think the issue here is does the +20 level of Mind control make you LIKE the choice you just made or just think its your idea. To move away from the rather inflammatory Mind Control "Seduction" I'll throw out this examople. If someone is Mind Controlled to shoot their mother in face and the Mind Controller gets +20' date=' does that mean the person in question calmly except that he just suddenly decided to murder his mother for no known reason or is some reeason for it crafted in his mind, or does it just seem to him like he had a psychotic break and shot his mother?[/quote']

 

The example has much merit. Just to play devil's advocate, I'll retort there is a huge difference: killing one's own mother is devastating experience, and in no case but a deep psychotic break or the result of years of severe child abuse, a person can construct it as a pleasant experience. Being seducted is a natural experience which people expect in their lives and enjoy if the circumstances are at all adequate. It is not difficult at all to get the subject to think it was a pleasant experience and their own idea.