Ethics for mentalists

[nexus]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

Perhaps the 2nd edition of Ultimate Mentalist will clarify that. Or maybe someone can ask Steve:)

 

Generally I think that type of adder should require a low level BOECV transform(1 pip or 1/2 d6), with partial effect, linked on an activation roll. There should be a chance that such high level control may have a lasting effect on the target's personality.

 

If +20 is that effective, I'd probably have to house rule another level in there where the target doesn't realize they were mind controlled, at least initially but they react normally to suddenly deciding to do bizarre things for no reason.

 

but that's difting off topic

[Blue Jogger]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

I think that there are ethical uses for Mind Control, Telepathy, and Mental Illusions and Mental Transforms.

 

A person who does not have the "free will" to stop smoking, but truely desires to quit. All these powers (except transforms) can help find out why and help to provide mental strength to assist the person into quitting. What if they were given Mental Illusions to edit out the pain of withdrawal?

 

A person who is trying to communicate something he's seen but can't, a simple Telepathy can easily express the ideas as if one was watching over his shoulder (or through his eyes). Granted, you probably aren't going to be able to take that to court. "But I read the eyewitness's mind, he saw it!" "I object, the hero perceived what the eyewitness perceived, perhaps, but that is still heresay."

 

What about giving a blind person the visual image of her daughter (which she has never seen)? Do we condemn this action as using a lethal weapon?

 

Mental Transforms, or specifically transforms that repair brain damage or cure psychosis can't be as unethical as killing the person. Although, I have to agree it might be unethical if not performed under proper supervision. "Yeah, I tweaked with Ogre's mind, couldn't make him any smarter, but he's less violent with his aggression centers all burned out." (Ogre sitting in the corner, drooling, staring at his toes and giggling.) However, imagine the person suffering from hallunations suddenly given lucidity. "Oh, thank you, the evil voices that told me to do all those horrible things are gone. I'll now dedicate my life to solving the world's problems instead of making murderous toy super weapons."

[transmetahuman]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

On the other hand' date=' 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.[/quote']

I'm not sure if I agree about mental illusions falling into the same class. If she sleeps with you because you've made her believe you look like a male supermodel - and it's explicitly a one-night stand, with no expectations on her part that more will come of it - why is that any less ethical than going to a plastic surgeon?

 

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.

I would say, "during the commission of a serious crime" rather than "in combat". I don't believe the use of lethal force is a good benchmark.

 

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.

I'll wager that nearly everyone on here will agree that "mental surgery" is unethical, except in cases of (prior!) informed consent. The question becomes, What line do you draw to distinguish mental surgery from other mental coercion? My first impulse is to say "depriving the person of the ability to know *why* they act or think as they do". If they know they only surrendered because you made them do it, it's "just" coercion. If they believe they made the choice themselves, and have to rationalize it somehow, that's going to affect their self-image and choices far beyond the base effect ("I can't ever drink again", "I can't rely on my judgement", "I must be insane", etc.)

 

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?

Yup, the ramifications on the justice system - any nation's justice system - would be a nightmare. GURPS Technomancer describes a modern Earth where mind control is a fact, and touches on some of the responses, but relies on "experts in mental magic" being able to determine whether such control has in fact happened. A bit inadequate IMO, and unless such experts are ubiquitous and dirt cheap, you can't go to them every time some little thing comes up. Some kid caught stealing candy at a store claims he was mind controlled by another kid - do you think they're going to call in experts? What happens when every petty criminal in the world starts making the same claim? Where is justice when you discount them all, but some of them aren't lying?

 

Nearly everyone caught doing something wrong has an impulse to justify it, preferably by showing that "it wasn't my fault!" Unless mind control can be easily, retroactively proven or disproven, or has large and provable limitations of scope or application, I honestly think known mind controllers would mean the end of civilization. Civilization requires accountability for one's actions.

[Chuckg]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

In GURPS Technomancer, they also handled that problem by making 'Detect Lie' a cheap, easily cast, and very common spell -- that was entirely constitutional to use. (Since it did not force you to answer the question, it merely infallibly told whether your answer was true(*), it was held to not violate the constitutional provisions re: self-incrimination.) AAMOF, the ceremonial casting of the Detect Lie spell was considered legally part of the witness swearing-in oath "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

 

They also noted that the commonest use of the "You Can't Lie" spell was for innocent people to plead 'Not Guilty!' while being zapped with it. (Guilty people pleading 'Not Guilty' had their lawyer do it... remember, your plea doesn't have to be made under oath. Indeed, unless you specifically plead guilty, your be presumed innocent, and all that.)

 

(Note -- while you could take the Fifth and refuse to testify against yourself, if you *did* choose to testify, or were subpoenaed to testify against someone else, you *had* to testify 'under oath' -- i.e., under Truth Spell. Refusal to do that was considered the same as a witness today refusing to swear the oath... i.e, contempt of court.)

 

i.e. -- the little kid wants to try claiming he was mind-controlled to steal that candy? The court can handle this in two minutes with one cheap casting... 'OK, junior, just step this way and make your deposition -- under oath.' *casts spell*

 

 

 

 

 

 

(*) They did note 'Yes, it is possible for the spell to be resisted. However, since the caster *knows* if the recipient successfully resisted it or not, they simply cast it again until it sticks. If you deliberately drag your heels in and resist for long enough to exhaust the judge's patience, they hit you with a contempt of court charge and keep going.'

[megaplayboy]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

In GURPS Technomancer, they also handled that problem by making 'Detect Lie' a cheap, easily cast, and very common spell -- that was entirely constitutional to use. (Since it did not force you to answer the question, it merely infallibly told whether your answer was true(*), it was held to not violate the constitutional provisions re: self-incrimination.) AAMOF, the ceremonial casting of the Detect Lie spell was considered legally part of the witness swearing-in oath "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

 

They also noted that the commonest use of the "You Can't Lie" spell was for innocent people to plead 'Not Guilty!' while being zapped with it. (Guilty people pleading 'Not Guilty' had their lawyer do it... remember, your plea doesn't have to be made under oath. Indeed, unless you specifically plead guilty, your be presumed innocent, and all that.)

 

(Note -- while you could take the Fifth and refuse to testify against yourself, if you *did* choose to testify, or were subpoenaed to testify against someone else, you *had* to testify 'under oath' -- i.e., under Truth Spell. Refusal to do that was considered the same as a witness today refusing to swear the oath... i.e, contempt of court.)

 

i.e. -- the little kid wants to try claiming he was mind-controlled to steal that candy? The court can handle this in two minutes with one cheap casting... 'OK, junior, just step this way and make your deposition -- under oath.' *casts spell*

 

 

 

 

 

 

(*) They did note 'Yes, it is possible for the spell to be resisted. However, since the caster *knows* if the recipient successfully resisted it or not, they simply cast it again until it sticks. If you deliberately drag your heels in and resist for long enough to exhaust the judge's patience, they hit you with a contempt of court charge and keep going.'

seems like a bloke who came up with an effective counterspell("undetectable lie") would be a very wealthy fellow.

[Chuckg]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

Kinda hard to arrange, given that casting Detect Magic first to make sure that the only magic on the witness stand was yours is also prudent procedure.

 

But even so, the counter-counter for that is very simple.

 

Judge -- "Mr. Jones, before you testify, kindly read the cue card we have placed in front of you."

 

Witness -- "My name is... Belladonna Smith, and I... am a sentient rutabaga from the planet Mars?"

 

Bailiff -- "It says he's telling the truth."

 

Judge -- "Oh really."

[Springald Jack]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

Now, an honest and ethical prosecutor will, upon discovering exculpatory evidence (such as the guy's own mind saying quite clearly that he didn't do it) will drop the charges. However, there are always those few bastard prosecutors out there.

 

But the real potential for abuse comes from the defense side.

 

Can anyone here imagine a defense attorney who, if the telepathic scan of his client comes up 'guilty as charged', will *not* do everything he possibly can to get that telepathic scan ruled inadmissible as evidence? Working the exclusionary rule is what defense attorneys *do*, for God's sake.

 

The defense argument isn't valid as people could only be telepathically examined with their own consent, as per the 5th amendment, presumably a guilty person would NOT submit to telepathic examination.

 

This has its own problems (such as if you are innocent why don't you submit to telepathic examination) but then no system, in which we retain free will, is perfect.

[Wanderer]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

It is not seduction because the subject is not convinced' date=' they are forced. Its not pleasant, they are convinced to beleive it is pleasant. And in not all circumstances is it pleasant. What if the target has deep seated moral convictions against casual sex. Respect that or not, one has to consider that. Just because you COULD make them forget all their inhibitions that doesn't mean it is right to do so of that it is ethical and moral to do so. You don't need mental powers to convince someone that a bad idea is there own, that doesn't make doing such things is ethical, even less because in this case your overriding someone's free will to slake your own desires so there's not even good intentions to fall back on.[/quote']

 

I know, both are violations of free will, only there' s a huge difference in the degree of violation involved. One is an extreme life-scarring experience, the other may or may not, since the act in itself belongs to normal human experience, even if the violation remains. It's like the difference between being beaten in a fistcuff and being tortured for days. Evil has degrees. With all the respect for the victim, forced sex is far, far from the worst a powerful mind controller or illusionist might inflict to a victim (forcing you to kill all of your friends and loved ones and eating their flesh springs to mind). I cannot begin to imagine how a mind controller might successfully make skewering your mommy look pleasant, apart of restructuring the whole life memories of the victim around a set of deep delusions ("She wasn't really your mommy, she is a vicious alien/demonic impersonator/an evil cultist that kindapped you at birth and has been raising you for human sacrifice, abusing you all the way").

 

However, human beings being what they are, unless the budding mentalist has got the moral fibre of Clark Kent, Steve Rogers, Gandhi and Mother Theresa combined, it's almost assured that he will perform some unethical use of his powers (typically in the first euphoric elation phase after gaining them), generally involving others getting him easy money, easy sex, easy romantic success, and easy social popularity. Seduction and "luck for money" charms have been very popular for millennia for a reason. It may be not ethical, but it's almost unavoidable, human nature being as it is. Ethical mentalists will calm down after a while, and restrict thmeselves to using powers for apprehending criminals and removing suicidal urges from the severely depressed. Morally grey ones will go on with occasional seductions and money scams, but likely structuring them so that no severe long-lasting damage remains in the victims. Sociopathic ones will treat the world like their free buffet of sadist cheap thrills and power fantasies. The first are the heroes, the second the NPCs, and the third are the villains.

[transmetahuman]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

-- the little kid wants to try claiming he was mind-controlled to steal that candy? The court can handle this in two minutes with one cheap casting... 'OK' date=' junior, just step this way and make your deposition -- under oath.' *casts spell*[/quote']I guess I was thinking more about the memory alteration spells when I brought up "expert examination". That's more relevant to HERO mind control at +20 effect, where the accused remembers doing it, remembers that he thought it was a good idea at the time, but can't for the life of him figure out why he thought so - and therefore believes it was mind control.

 

The reason I used kid in a candy store as an example, though, is to point out that truth spells, memory tampering experts, or panels of three telepaths aren't usually going to be ubiquitous enough to deal with every little incident - people are going to use the "I was mind-controlled" excuse in a lot of cases that don't justify a trial.

[Guest daeudi_454]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

I play primarily mentalists.

Who is this Ed Ticks you speak of?

 

My characters generally have no consideration for the free will or privacy of villains.

In fact, none of my characters have even pretended to care about the "rights" of criminals except when another team mate has forced the issue.

They should be thankful that I don't simply erase them down to a vegetable.

 

That said- none of my mentalists have ever used their powers on non-combatants. Even to erase memories of things that should not have been seen.

EDIT: Correction- Telepathy has been used to find out what was causing an NPC so much emotional anguish. It was hhidden use, and the NPC was never made aware of it- it was turned into a conversation / therapy session.

[nexus]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

I know, both are violations of free will, only there' s a huge difference in the degree of violation involved. One is an extreme life-scarring experience, the other may or may not, since the act in itself belongs to normal human experience, even if the violation remains. It's like the difference between being beaten in a fistcuff and being tortured for days. Evil has degrees. With all the respect for the victim, forced sex is far, far from the worst a powerful mind controller or illusionist might inflict to a victim (forcing you to kill all of your friends and loved ones and eating their flesh springs to mind). I cannot begin to imagine how a mind controller might successfully make skewering your mommy look pleasant, apart of restructuring the whole life memories of the victim around a set of deep delusions ("She wasn't really your mommy, she is a vicious alien/demonic impersonator/an evil cultist that kindapped you at birth and has been raising you for human sacrifice, abusing you all the way").

 

The fact that one is arguably "worse" than the other makes no difference in how ethical or moral the action is. Both are violations of your body and mind. The fact that one is easier to make "pleasant" doesn't make it accptable. If I drug a woman and rape (yes, the forbidden word but to ignore it is hobbling one side in favor of the other) then clean her up and she recalls nothing but passing out, am I less in the wrong than someone that drags her into in alleyway? The fact there is something worse that can be done doesn't eliminate the guilt of the act

 

There seems to be this impression that everyone wants to/expects to have casual sex at any given moment of their lives and any sexual experience will most likely be considered positive as long as its considered their idea. A man or woman dedicated their spouse or significant other might feel great distress at "deciding" to sleep with some stranger, as might someone who's religious or personal beliefs taught them otherwise. People have killed themselves over these choices even when it WAS their free will, families and lives have been destroyed. Tell that victim essentially "well it could have been worse" would be a cold comfort for them. Yes sex is a common experience for most humans beings, but for many humans beings it is also a intimate, important (and sometimes sacred) experience. Its not be definition less harmful because its "only" sex.

 

Frankly, I don't agree with comparison of using Mind Control to get sex with "Seduction". Its not. Its coercion. Coercsion the victim might not ever now about, corercion that could be made to see enjoyable. And yes, under certain situations, Seduction can unethical too, IMO.

 

I am honestly happy such powers don't exist in the real world (or are very uncommon) as I don't think humans being as they are could handle that sort of power.

[Whitewings]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

By way of reference, the phrasing in the books is "The target will remember the actions and think they were his own idea." I believe the full text goes on to say that the target will come up with some sort of rationalization.

 

On a different matter, let's suppose that you have an addiction counsellor with either Mental Transform or a truly huge Mind Control, sufficient to implant a command that will last for months or years, "You will refrain from (addictive substance)." Is this unethical, and if so why?

[Chuckg]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

If the patient is ASKING me to do it, it's no more unethical than going to a hypnotist to help quit smoking. Except for the difference that what I'm doing will *work*.

 

Informed consent from the dude you're doing it to won't excuse EVERY-thing, but it will excuse a LOT of things.

[nexus]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

By way of reference, the phrasing in the books is "The target will remember the actions and think they were his own idea." I believe the full text goes on to say that the target will come up with some sort of rationalization.

 

It doesn't really say. It mentions the target might think he was mind controlled and shook it off, and the action were his own, but not that the target will automically come up with some rationalization that makes his action seems "normal".

 

On a different matter, let's suppose that you have an addiction counsellor with either Mental Transform or a truly huge Mind Control, sufficient to implant a command that will last for months or years, "You will refrain from (addictive substance)." Is this unethical, and if so why?

 

If the patient gave consent I don't think it would unethical.

[Guest NGD Illuminati]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

We are all in favor of ethics and morals for all mentalists who are not yet our direct pawns.

 

Captain America abandons the Discordian and the yak.

[Wanderer]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

The fact that one is arguably "worse" than the other makes no difference in how ethical or moral the action is. Both are violations of your body and mind. The fact that one is easier to make "pleasant" doesn't make it accptable. If I drug a woman and rape (yes' date=' the forbidden word but to ignore it is hobbling one side in favor of the other) then clean her up and she recalls nothing but passing out, am I less in the wrong than someone that drags her into in alleyway? The fact there is something worse that can be done doesn't eliminate the guilt of the act. [/quote']

 

I seem to remember that starting this thread I stated that IMO the only ethical possible uses of major mind control powers (Mind Control, Mental Illusions, Telepathy, Emotion Control), the ones that effectively override free will, would be comparable to the ones where lethal force would be allowed: i.e., self-defense, open war, save another, prevent a major felony or apprehending a felon. Sex really does not enter in the picture. Long-term personality restructuring (Mental Transform) is even more ethicaslly suspect, and should be used with the same precautions as major surgery.

 

Things are more fuzzy as concerns "minor" mind influence (High PRE or Interaction skills), the one that might be compared to exceptional social aptitude, and does not override free will, only sends a significant "push" in favour of taking a decision. Here things are not so clear-cut. Is a super-charismatic person morally in the wrong if he induces (but not forces) people to do what he wants ? As far as I can see it, this depends on the actions that are induced, and not on the use of the influence itself. Actions that result in harm to the subject or a third party are unethical, others do not. As for coupling, it depends on the circumstances, as you pointed out. However, it is not an inherently harmful act, the way inducing someone to kill their own child is.

 

There seems to be this impression that everyone wants to/expects to have casual sex at any given moment of their lives and any sexual experience will most likely be considered positive as long as its considered their idea.

 

This is an exaggeration. However, it is true that in current mainstream culture, casual sex is not seen as an inherently harmful or immoral experience, and if it is subjectely experienced as pleasant and does not messes with the person's ongoing relationships, is to be reckoned as something positive. Hence, inducing (not controlling) one to do it is not an inherently harmful act, universally deemed as unethical, the way inducing someone to murder is. E.g. persuading someone to kill is a felony. Seduction isn't.

 

A man or woman dedicated their spouse or significant other might feel great distress at "deciding" to sleep with some stranger, as might someone who's religious or personal beliefs taught them otherwise. People have killed themselves over these choices even when it WAS their free will, families and lives have been destroyed.

 

As a matter of fact, the main ethical issue in seduction is whether it messes with an otherwise happy relationship or arouse feelings, expectations and broken hearts that the subject cannot cope with. I won't comment on the belief topic, since personally I'm deeply, deeply biased against those religious beliefs that are most notorious for teaching, besides other questionable things, that sexual abstinence *by itself* is a duty or necessary thing, and, if any, I fondly wish for their speedy marginalization and extinction. But really, let's not be dramatic. Well-adjusted people would experience *some* distress, comparable to losing a job at the very worst. People who decide to kill themselves out of remorse for something this would be seen as seriously disturbed of their own. Morality of an act should be weighted on its effect on the average person, not the most weak specimen ever. Cfr. the concept of obscenity.

 

Yes sex is a common experience for most humans beings, but for many humans beings it is also a intimate, important (and sometimes sacred) experience. Its not be definition less harmful because its "only" sex.

 

It is an example of a behavior that is not harmful by itself, like eating, as opposed to cutting a finger or torture. Yep coercing to is still definitely wrong, but because you violate free will. However, influencing to something that is not harmful is not wrong by itself. It may only be if consequences are signficantly harmful in the particular case. So Mind Control sex bad. Super charisma sex it depends, but in most circumstances, not.

 

Frankly, I don't agree with comparison of using Mind Control to get sex with "Seduction". Its not. Its coercion. Coercsion the victim might not ever now about, corercion that could be made to see enjoyable. And yes, under certain situations, Seduction can unethical too, IMO.

 

I happen to agree with this almost entirely I only have to remark that even if two acts are both immoral, it does not surely mean to have to be equally bad. Evil definitely has degrees. Punching someone is not the same than killing him, his spouse, children, and dog. Stealing one's umbrella is not the same than robbing one's life savings. Blackmailing one to sex is not the same than overwhelming resistance by beating within an inch of the victim's life. Therefore, while MC-ing someone is generally a bad thing (see the exceptions above), the action you induce to matters as regards severity, as it is the fact the victim may be believably induced to think it was a pleasant experience, or it was own idea, as long as both things alleviate and do not increase regret and sense of violation. Even in Hell, there are different punishments for different sins, they say

 

I am honestly happy such powers don't exist in the real world (or are very uncommon) as I don't think humans being as they are could handle that sort of power.

 

However, the genre that has gathered us on this very forum is built on the assumption that in a setting muhc like real world, all kinds of human beings would be bestowed the powers of the gods, definitely including mental control powers, so we are forced to speculate. And messing with others' minds is one of classic eternal power fantasies of human beings, so it must depicted in any decent speculative fiction about superhuman powers.

[Blue Jogger]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

On a different matter' date=' let's suppose that you have an addiction counsellor with either Mental Transform or a truly huge Mind Control, sufficient to implant a command that will last for months or years, "You will refrain from (addictive substance)." Is this unethical, and if so why?[/quote']

 

I think it can be unethical as you deprieve the person of his own ability to fight off the addiction himself. Many people have had to go cold turkey the hard way, and those that can fight off the addiction and stay clean by choice and sheer nail-biting will are usually better people in the long run for it (higher EGO).

 

That being said, I might choose the shortcut if it was an option and I had a powerful addiction. Shoot, I could stand to lose 30 pounds (at least), zap me with "I will exercise at least 30 minutes every day, eat a carefully balanced diet, and will think it was my own idea, please."

[nexus]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

Things are more fuzzy as concerns "minor" mind influence (High PRE or Interaction skills), the one that might be compared to exceptional social aptitude, and does not override free will, only sends a significant "push" in favour of taking a decision. Here things are not so clear-cut. Is a super-charismatic person morally in the wrong if he induces (but not forces) people to do what he wants ? As far as I can see it, this depends on the actions that are induced, and not on the use of the influence itself. Actions that result in harm to the subject or a third party are unethical, others do not. As for coupling, it depends on the circumstances, as you pointed out. However, it is not an inherently harmful act, the way inducing someone to kill their own child is.

 

I beleive I have said there is less of, or perhaps no issue about "Super" charisimatic individuals. Whjere we disagree is on the nature inducing, forcing or what you have someone in sex that might not desire.

 

 

This is an exaggeration. However, it is true that in current mainstream culture, casual sex is not seen as an inherently harmful or immoral experience, and if it is subjectely experienced as pleasant and does not messes with the person's ongoing relationships, is to be reckoned as something positive.

 

Define current mainstream culture? Which culture? What about the person's own morals regardless of what "mainstream culture" thinks? Because its pleasant if the person would never have peformed the act (say a straight man MC'ed in homosexual interouse, or the inverse) because it they had any choice in the matter because they were made to think it was enjoyable. It acceptable?

 

Hence, inducing (not controlling) one to do it is not an inherently harmful act, universally deemed as unethical, the way inducing someone to murder is. E.g. persuading someone to kill is a felony. Seduction isn't.

 

I am talking about using Mind Control in the classic sense;the mentalist in question overrides his targets normal throught process and inserts what he wants them to think. It is not their choice, not their decision in any way. It is an alien drive inserted in their mind by another being for the purpose of satifying their own desires.

 

As a matter of fact, the main ethical issue in seduction is whether it messes with an otherwise happy relationship or arouse feelings, expectations and broken hearts that the subject cannot cope with. I won't comment on the belief topic, since personally I'm deeply, deeply biased against those religious beliefs that are most notorious for teaching, besides other questionable things, that sexual abstinence *by itself* is a duty or necessary thing, and, if any, I fondly wish for their speedy marginalization and extinction. But really, let's not be dramatic. Well-adjusted people would experience *some* distress, comparable to losing a job at the very worst. People who decide to kill themselves out of remorse for something this would be seen as seriously disturbed of their own. Morality of an act should be weighted on its effect on the average person, not the most weak specimen ever. Cfr. the concept of obscenity.

 

Well, just because you don't like it doesn't mean its beaneath consideration. And yes people have killed themselves over committing adulterly, or have suffered severe emotional trauma, or at the very least its wrecked their lives. Its being rather cavlier to completely toss aside the importance of the beliefs and will different people because they don't happen to agree with yours or are "Weak" by whatver standards you hold. Someone MC's a man into adulterous affair that costs him his wife, his children, home, reputation and everything that makes his life mean something so he ends up killing himself doesn't seem so far fetched to me.

 

Even the average person is generally going to feel more remose than "losing a job" over their relationship getting trashed, violating deeply held perssonal beliefs or their own morality. Some perfectly "average" people don't beleive in casual sex and don't desire random sexual encounters.

 

It is an example of a behavior that is not harmful by itself, like eating, as opposed to cutting a finger or torture. Yep coercing to is still definitely wrong, but because you violate free will. However, influencing to something that is not harmful is not wrong by itself. It may only be if consequences are signficantly harmful in the particular case. So Mind Control sex bad. Super charisma sex it depends, but in most circumstances, not.

 

It depends, like anything on how "Super Charisma" is used. Its power and tool like any other. If my "charisma" is so potent as to be effectively irresistable to the majority of the population and I can effectively use it to "induce" them to perform acts they normally wouldn't then it is a effectively a power and brings a certain moral responsibility.

 

"Regular" high charisma can be abused in unethical ways, including seduction done with no consideration for the feelings of the target or the aftermath of the act. Those people were often referred to as cads and other colorful names.

 

I only have to remark that even if two acts are both immoral, it does not surely mean to have to be equally bad. Evil definitely has degrees. Punching someone is not the same than killing him, his spouse, children, and dog. Stealing one's umbrella is not the same than robbing one's life savings. Blackmailing one to sex is not the same than overwhelming resistance by beating within an inch of the victim's life. Therefore, while MC-ing someone is generally a bad thing (see the exceptions above), the action you induce to matters as regards severity, as it is the fact the victim may be believably induced to think it was a pleasant experience, or it was own idea, as long as both things alleviate and do not increase regret and sense of violation. Even in Hell, there are different punishments for different sins, they say

 

I think you have misunderstood what I said. The two acts are both wrong, and because one is worse that doesn't alleviate the fact the first one is just as wrong. One is less severe; how much less severe depends on many factors.

 

We will just have to disagree on the idea that being able to make the target think that enjoyed it lessens the severity of the act. A powerful enough mentalist COULD make you think killing your family and bathing in their blood was fun, after all, just like a lesser one could make a nun become a 20 dollar street walker and think she was having the time of her life.

[Springald Jack]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

I think it can be unethical as you deprieve the person of his own ability to fight off the addiction himself.

 

That is ridiculous. It's unethical for someone to get help to do something good for them?

 

By that logic no one should ever see a mental-health professional for a problem that ANYONE could overcome by themself.

[The Watcher]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

That is ridiculous. It's unethical for someone to get help to do something good for them?

 

By that logic no one should ever see a mental-health professional for a problem that ANYONE could overcome by themself.

I believe he means doing so without the consent of the one helped.

[The Watcher]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

I seem to remember that starting this thread I stated that IMO the only ethical possible uses of major mind control powers (Mind Control' date=' Mental Illusions, Telepathy, Emotion Control), the ones that effectively override free will, would be comparable to the ones where lethal force would be allowed: i.e., self-defense, open war, save another, prevent a major felony or apprehending a felon. Sex really does not enter in the picture. Long-term personality restructuring (Mental Transform) is even more ethicaslly suspect, and should be used with the same precautions as major surgery. [/quote']I can think of an ethical use of Mind Control or Mental Illusions that don't involve situations comparable to those when lethal force would be allowed. Situations in which the subject, of his own free will and with no coercion involved, volunteers for such powers to be used on them.

 

Someone being asked to be mind controlled to help overcome bad habits like smoking is one example that's been used already. Someone requesting a traumatic memory to be forgotten would be another.

 

As for Mental Illusions, think about what it does. It literally can provide experiences that seem real to all of one's senses. And lots of people are willing to pay big bucks for experiences.

 

Imagine someone who's trying to watch their calorie intake letting an illusionist use their powers to let them enjoy fabulous meals that would totally break their diet if they actually ate them. Or a telepath going into business as a Mr. Roarke and giving people fantasy vacations.

 

And then for a less frivolous example, how about someone using Mental Illusion to take away the sensation of chronic pain from someone?

[nexus]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

Consent changes allot, but about times when consent is not given? What are some ethical uses of Mind Control, Telepathy and Mental Illusion that doesn't involve?

[Karmakaze]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

Well, Mental Illusions of the same sort as "Invisibility - Somebody Elses Problem Field" is probably just on the ethical side...

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

Interesting thread – sorry I missed the early discussions. A lot of this will be summarizing points others have already made:

 

I’m of the “Violence is always bad, but it is sometimes significantly less bad than the alternative†school myself. So by that thinking, using mental powers to coerce someone to do something against their will is wrong. The question is: is it any more or less wrong than pointing a gun at them and coercing them to do something against their will, or just hitting them until they do what you want?

 

Much depends, of course, on why you’re coercing them. Coercing people for your own benefit – “Have sex with me†– is a bad thing however you dress it up or rationalize it. Coercing people to protect others – “Don’t kill that person†– is a good thing, because it’s less wrong than murder. Where we enter serious grey area is when you start coercing people “for their own good†but without their consent. If I wrestle you to the ground to keep you from throwing yourself off a cliff, no jury in the land will convict me of assault. OTOH if I force you at gunpoint to put down that Big Mac and eat a salad instead, my “It was for his own good!†defense will be rightly laughed out of court.

 

I think that to most people, being deprived of the right to choose is what makes mental powers seem so evil. If you point a gun at me and order me to surrender, I can choose to comply or not; if I choose not to comply and get shot, well that was my choice. Personally, if I had to choose between being mentally compelled, physically compelled, or compelled at gunpoint I’ll take physical force any day. I’ve been hit before, bruises heal, etc, and I can choose to fight back or not. And while I’d prefer not to get shot, I’d rather have someone point a gun at me than find myself twisting on some mentalist’s strings with no control over my own mind. I suppose the ethical mentalist could always give a target some kind of “Leave now before I make you leave†type of warning?

 

[sidebar: what was that cop comedy (movie? TV show?) several years back where the one partner was a martial artist, but he was required to give people a lengthy warning before he could use his abilities? The joke was that he usually got beat up before he could finish the warning.]

 

Of course, for most superhero games I file this under “It’s a genre thing†– right next to the whole “vigilante justice†question – and ignore it, because otherwise it’s all but impossible to have effective mentalist heroes. (As Blue observed.)

 

 

bigdamnhero

“I know. You know I know. I know you know I know. We know Henry knows, and Henry knows we know it. We're a knowledgeable family.â€

[nexus]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

However, the genre that has gathered us on this very forum is built on the assumption that in a setting muhc like real world, all kinds of human beings would be bestowed the powers of the gods, definitely including mental control powers, so we are forced to speculate. And messing with others' minds is one of classic eternal power fantasies of human beings, so it must depicted in any decent speculative fiction about superhuman powers.

 

I didn't say not to discuss it here (after all, here I am), just that I'm grateful we don't have to deal with it in the real world.