Superpowers and Ethics

[Shadow Hawk]

Split from the "Tenure as perk" discussion, as we had a bad case of thread drift.

 

So, under what circumstances would using a power (say, mind control) be ethical? Unethical? Downright evil?

 

I'm going to draw my own line in the sand for mind control as...

 

To prevent a crime: Ethical

For personal convenience: Unethical

To commit a crime: Evil.

 

And there would be subgrades in there also. If I'm speeding with a dying person in the car to get to the hosptital and use mind control to make a police officer not give you a speeding ticket or even provide an escort...

That's unethical in a good cause, so I'd say you'd need to apoligize and buy the cop a beer or something.

 

Any other thoughts or arguements?

[Clonus]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

 

]So is it more ethical to influence the Board with the promise of a large donation to the school (using wealth rather than persuasion), or an endorsement (using fame rather than persuasion)?

Mind control is persuasion in the same way slipping rohypnol into a girl's drink is romance.

 

 

 

 

Ultimately, where is the line drawn? People use their natural abilities and their influence to benefit themselves. We accept that a doctor should be paid more than a cashier.

Because we actually benefit from paying doctors more than cashiers. We do NOT benefit from having people control our minds for their own convenience.

 

 

"Mind Control" is a game mechanic, so it's easy to see "this overrides free will", but it's really just persuasion or coercion that has the advantage of, perhaps, being harder to detect and, certainly, being more certain of achieving the desired result.

Mind Control is an assault, no different from punching people in the face, pointing a gun at them, or slipping drugs into their drinks and allowable under the same circumstances where you would be justified in doing any of those things. Conceivably you could modify Mind Control as a mechanic to the point where it's invisible, costs no energy, and won't persuade anyone to do anything they dislike doing, but Persuasion would probably be cheaper and as effective. And that wasn't what Doctor Mind was doing.

 

 

As opposed to the more ethical use of wealth, celebrity or natural charm and a glib tongue to have any woman you want?

No matter how much charm and glibness, or money you might have, you can't actually have any woman you want.

 

Is it the ability itself, or the lack of ethics of the people considering it, which is unethical? If you could fly, would you use those powers to save lives? Would a person gifted with enhanced strength and agility use those powers for the betterment of his fellow man, or to achieve fame, wealth and celebrity (ask Peter Parker!)?

Peter Parker didn't use his powers to become a jewel thief or a purse snatcher.

 

So how far do we take coercion? Often, the department head's power of persuasion is augmented by his influence over compensation, promotion and continued employment. Is use of that power inherently immoral or unethical? It can definitely be viewed as coercion.

Persuading people to do their jobs with your authority as their superior is legitimate. They agreed to accept the chain of authority when they took the position with the organization and if they find they can no longer stomach it, they are free to leave. People who are unaware that they are being attacked have no such freedom.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

This depends on what system of ethics you use, and how ethical behavior is determined. I would for example say using mind control to prevent a crime is unethical.

 

I am defining crime prevention as the aversion of a crime that has not been committed.

 

Stopping a crime in progress is ethical, to the same degree that any citizen can ethically try and stop a crime (e.g. killing in self defense).

 

In your example, it is unethical to mind control a cop to not give you a speeding ticket or escort you. The ethical solution is to have the cop call emergency medical personnel to provide aid to the dying person. If you are speeding with a dying person in your back seat, that doesn’t make you any less of a danger to yourself or others on the road. Thus if you get caught, you should be appropriately fined.

 

Subgrades of ethics is a better way of saying “I know what I’m doing is wrong and I’m rationalizing it to feel better”. Ethical situations are binary, an action is either ethical or unethical. Some situations may require further clarification (if X then ethical, else unethical), but the end result is either Ethical or Unethical. EDIT: shades of gray are the result of insufficient information to determine the ethics of a situation, they are unavoidable in real life, but that doesn't excuse acting unethically if a determination can be made.

 

For other powers the ethics are different. For example healing has many ethical implications, resistant protection has very few ethical questions.

 

Tl:dr Ends don’t justify the means.

 

Double Edit: To cover myself, I'll claim that ethically neutral actions can exist, and I'm sure people this forum will give examples, but this is not one of them.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I think there's a bit of confusion because people might classify someone punching someone else as "wrong" without considering whether it's ethical. Others assume that any mental coercion is automatically "unfair" and therefore unethical by default.

 

The lawyers among us can express it better and cite better examples, but in common law it's recognized that it's legal to break a law so long as it is in the course of upholding a greater law. To put it another way, it's permissible to cause harm, but only when a greater harm can be prevented thereby.

Personal example: I was visiting my Uncle Tom in Placerville when he went to help a neighbor by cutting down a tree on their property. As we were cutting the tree down, a branch fell on my uncle's foot, breaking it. I was fifteen and had no driver's license, but since my uncle was unable and this was before cell phones (and even before 911 was widespread) I drove him to the emergency room for treatment.

Under ordinary circumstances, it was illegal for me to drive, but allowing my uncle to suffer while one of us kids (my cousin was there, too) ran for help to a distant house of unknown location was a greater harm. In addition, my uncle was the one who directed me to drive him to the hospital. If we had been stopped by a policeman I'm sure he would've arranged for swift transport for my uncle and no-one would have been in trouble.

Example two: Shooting other people with a firearm is bad and, of course, illegal. Under some circumstances, it

is

legal to shoot a person. Usually it is legal when failing to shoot that person will result in immediate serious injury or death to the shooter or a third person.

Therefore, I suggest it's legal to use mind control to prevent immediate harm to ones self or a third person, and is functionally equivalent to restraining another person to prevent them from throwing a punch or using a weapon. The threat must be immediate (by which I would suggest this means the harm will occur before legally-constituted authority can reasonably be expected to arrive) and the harm averted must be serious enough to warrant restraining someone against their will.

 

Still kinda vague, but at least I'd be comfortable with a mutually agreed-upon standard (provided we can agree upon one) defining what circumstances warrant mental coercion.

 

Does anyone agree that, vague as they might be, the above guidelines are a good starting point?

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Let me first stay that I pretty much agree with Clonus that Mind Control prevents free will and therefore is generally unethical to use at all, except when stopping criminal behavior, in which case it is just a mental version of using physical force to restrain an individual. In fact for most ethical situations involving Mind Control I think that you can answer the question just by making the physical analogy.

 

But here is where it gets muddy for me. Is it ethical to Mind Control a psychiatric patient to take their meds? You are forcing them to do something against their free-will, but for their own good. This seems particularly relavent in RPGs where many villains are mentally unstable.

 

If the patient is uncontrollably violent without meds, it seems reasonable. But what if the patient is just a kleptomaniac? Or maybe they have a pathological fear of water and so never bathe which leads to them becoming socially ostracized and ultimately homeless?

 

Where do you draw the line and who gets to decide? As Roy points out, grey areas in ethics are often lack of information, which is why we defer to experts in the field in many instances. But that also assumes those experts are ethical themselves.

 

Michael Willrich in his book "Pox, An American History" describes how at the turn of the last century police and health officials rounded up blacks and immigrants by force in order to vaccinate them against small pox, often at gun point. Sure it was for the greater good (and shockingly ham-handed) but was it ethical? Health officials thought so and they were the experts in the field at the time. Would it have been any better if they had had Mind Control available to them?

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I think there's a bit of confusion because people might classify someone punching someone else as "wrong" without considering whether it's ethical. Others assume that any mental coercion is automatically "unfair" and therefore unethical by default.

 

The lawyers among us can express it better and cite better examples, but in common law it's recognized that it's legal to break a law so long as it is in the course of upholding a greater law. To put it another way, it's permissible to cause harm, but only when a greater harm can be prevented thereby.

Personal example: I was visiting my Uncle Tom in Placerville when he went to help a neighbor by cutting down a tree on their property. As we were cutting the tree down, a branch fell on my uncle's foot, breaking it. I was fifteen and had no driver's license, but since my uncle was unable and this was before cell phones (and even before 911 was widespread) I drove him to the emergency room for treatment.

Under ordinary circumstances, it was illegal for me to drive, but allowing my uncle to suffer while one of us kids (my cousin was there, too) ran for help to a distant house of unknown location was a greater harm. In addition, my uncle was the one who directed me to drive him to the hospital. If we had been stopped by a policeman I'm sure he would've arranged for swift transport for my uncle and no-one would have been in trouble.

Example two: Shooting other people with a firearm is bad and, of course, illegal. Under some circumstances, it

is

legal to shoot a person. Usually it is legal when failing to shoot that person will result in immediate serious injury or death to the shooter or a third person.

Therefore, I suggest it's legal to use mind control to prevent immediate harm to ones self or a third person, and is functionally equivalent to restraining another person to prevent them from throwing a punch or using a weapon. The threat must be immediate (by which I would suggest this means the harm will occur before legally-constituted authority can reasonably be expected to arrive) and the harm averted must be serious enough to warrant restraining someone against their will.

 

Still kinda vague, but at least I'd be comfortable with a mutually agreed-upon standard (provided we can agree upon one) defining what circumstances warrant mental coercion.

 

Does anyone agree that, vague as they might be, the above guidelines are a good starting point?

 

It is a good starting point, and you cite good examples. But I would suggest that "legal" and "ethical" are two different animals.

[Cancer]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

To distill things I've seen here, it sounds like there are folks who think that Mind Control is, by definition evil, because it overrides an individual's free will. My interpretation of some comments I've seen is that it is purported to be even more unethical/more evil than the use of lethal force, because a person with a gun held to his back can still opt to act despite that threat, and the mind controlled individual cannot. I'm not certain I agree with that, but I have to think about it.

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I think a lot of the discussion was initally started by one Misconception on the Part of Hugh:

"Mind Control" is a game mechanic' date=' so it's easy to see "this overrides free will", but it's really just persuasion or coercion that has the advantage of, perhaps, being harder to detect and, certainly, being more certain of achieving the desired result.[/quote']

There is one flaw in this: It say's it overrides free will, right in the first line of the game effect: "A character with this Mental Power can take control of another character’s mind, and thus of his actions." 6E1 253

He wanted to define it as an "Very persuasive" SFX. However, such a definition has no effect on the game mechanics, including what is allowed and/or ethical with that power.

 

"Persuasion" is Conversation, Charm, PRE-Attacks...

Mind Control is... Mind Controll.

 

About the etics:

I would simply aply the same you would aply to using focre (or the threat of it). Is it etical to tie someone up, so you can force feed him his meds? The answer aplies to mind controll with the same effect too.

Of course, to archieve a lasting effect on someone with psychic instabilites you would have to make it either make the "victims thinks it was his own decision roll", or use normal persuasion (not making the "own decision roll" would be as effective as force-feeding - meaning it is counter productive for the healing process).

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

To distill things I've seen here' date=' it sounds like there are folks who think that Mind Control is, [u']by definition[/u] evil, because it overrides an individual's free will. My interpretation of some comments I've seen is that it is purported to be even more unethical/more evil than the use of lethal force, because a person with a gun held to his back can still opt to act despite that threat, and the mind controlled individual cannot. I'm not certain I agree with that, but I have to think about it.

It is certainly more tempting to abuse, than a fire blast or PRE attack (since that could be identified and judged by court as Threating or Assault).

This also aplies, at some point, to the magic in shadowrun. They solved it by adding the rule that a magical action leaves "residue". Ironically that way a mage spills even more evidence across the room, that a berserker with a dozen cuts and whirwind-attack.

To make "hiding ones trail" possible, they allowed to "erease" the magic aura, given enough time (wich is not always that plenty in SR).

 

So, how about we just "adopt" that concept to HERO?

 

One thing that also disturbs me a little bit, is that there seem to be no "Maximum Effect" Limitation for MC and Mental Illusion (at least I found none). Such a rule would allow to build very effective/result save EGO+10 attacks, without the chance (or risk) to archieve EGO+30.

[Outsider]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

So it's more acceptable to kill them than force actions. By that logic' date=' should we execute tax evaders rather than require they file their taxes? [/quote']

 

It is more acceptable to coerce by threat of death than to coerce by Mind Control. Again, the person beng coerced by threat of death still gets to choose between cooperation or death. The person coerced by mind control does not. I can think of several (rather unlikely) things that I'd select death over doing, given the choice.

 

As to tax evaders, it is better to threaten them with imprisonment and seizure of assets (which is what we do) rather than mind control them. They still get to choose which option they want.

 

 

So is it more ethical to influence the Board with the promise of a large donation to the school (using wealth rather than persuasion), or an endorsement (using fame rather than persuasion)?

 

Yes, it is more ethical to offer money or fame as an enticement than to use Mind Control. People can turn down money or fame. Also, Mind Control IS NOT persuasion.

 

Ultimately, where is the line drawn? People use their natural abilities and their influence to benefit themselves.

 

The line is drawn, as said and at a minimum, when the other person has no choice, not even to die rather than comply.

 

 

We accept that a doctor should be paid more than a cashier.

 

Do we? I accept that doctors do get paid more than cashiers, but that isnt the same as accepting that they should. But thank you for telling me what I think should be.

 

 

That is using his natural talents to his own benefit.

 

Becoming a doctor (or any other highly paid professional that requires an expensive education) is usually a matter of taking advantage of one's birth situation. I have heard that half of all doctors (in the USA at least) are the children of doctors. When there is global equal opportunity, where everyone gets the same health care and nutrition from conception on, and has the same access to education at all levels (no 'richer people have easier access to education' situations) then maybe i will accept that those becoming doctors (or other professionals) do so strictly due to their own 'natural talents'.

 

 

Most of us consider the compensation package in deciding between jobs - is selecting the higher paying job inherently unethical? Is negotiating for a raise (perhaps with the threat of withdrawing our services otherwise) unethical?

 

Usually not, but it can be. If you're the only one who can do a job in time to prevent an immediately identifiable bad outcome, and you refuse to do it because your compensation demands are not met, then yes, you are acting unethically. Sticking with the doctor example, You're the only doctor in the emergency room when Bill Gates is brought in conscious, but in critical condition. He is going to die in 10 minutes if you do nothing. Nobody else within 10 minutes of the ER has the requisite skills to save him. If you decide that this is the time to negociate with Bill for a $10 billion compensation package for doing your job, then you are acting unethically. Even if it isnt your job (you don't work there) but you do have the skill to save him, the only ethical course of action is to do so, compensation or no.

 

 

"Mind Control" is a game mechanic, so it's easy to see "this overrides free will", but it's really just persuasion or coercion that has the advantage of, perhaps, being harder to detect and, certainly, being more certain of achieving the desired result.

 

Again, Mind Control is not the same as persuasion. Or even the same as non-Mind Control coersion. Having only the 'option' to comply is fundamentally different than having the option to comply or refuse.

 

As opposed to the more ethical use of wealth, celebrity or natural charm and a glib tongue to have any woman you want?

 

As Clonus said, No matter how much charm and glibness, or money you might have, you can't actually have any woman you want.

 

 

 

Is it the ability itself, or the lack of ethics of the people considering it, which is unethical?

 

The ability itself is not unethical. Abilities have no ethics. People do.

 

BUT, I believe the ability itself, as defined (Undetectable when used, untracable to who used it or what orders were given after the fact) would present such a grave temptation to all but the most towering paragon of ethical behavior, that it is functionally an unethical power.

 

 

If you could fly, would you use those powers to save lives?

 

If the opportunity to do so presented itself, yes. I might even be able to convince someone to pay me a livable wage to stand by being ready to do so. But I don't think I would be obliged to endanger myself (or anyone else) to do so.

 

 

Would a person gifted with enhanced strength and agility use those powers for the betterment of his fellow man, or to achieve fame, wealth and celebrity (ask Peter Parker!)?

 

I dont know what a person would do. I can only say what I would do, or what I think a person should do. And I suspect that someone who uses their superhuman abilities purely for the betterment of his fellow man would achieve fame, wealth, and celebrity as a side effect.

 

 

Is it inherently unethical to use a natural advantage to your benefit?

 

 

I'd say it depends on what the natural advantage is and how one uses it.

 

 

If not, why would the natural advantage of persuasiveness, right on up to mind control, be singled out as "unethical".

 

At the risk of becoming a broken record : Mind Control is not persuasion. Thy are not two points on the same continuum. See earlier comments on why.

 

 

I think it's easier to single out Mind Control because we know that it doesn't exist, so we don't have to be afraid the ethics of our own actions using it could be called into question.

 

If Mind Control were readily detectable with normal senses, and left forensic evidence detectable by normal means that made the fact of its use, the orders given, and its user evident, then I wouldn't be so down on it. Unethical people with the Mind Control ability would mostly self regulate for fear of the consequences of misusing it.

 

 

So how far do we take coercion? Often, the department head's power of persuasion is augmented by his influence over compensation, promotion and continued employment. Is use of that power inherently immoral or unethical? It can definitely be viewed as coercion. Medical associations use the threat that doctors will leave your jurisdiction for greener pastures all the time when they find the legislative landscape not to their liking. Is this inherently unethical? Is it unethical for a doctor to leave his small rural general practice to make more money as a cardiologist in a major urban center? Is it unethical for the more glib cardiologist to use that greater power of persuasiveness to get the job, or get the promotion?

 

Is it unethical of the cardio center to tempt that GP with higher earnings?

 

To lump these together (and repeat myself) : The people being 'coerced' in these situations can comply or not, so they are in fundamentaly different situations than ones involving Mind Control.

 

Is it unethical of the doctor to treat patients who can pay in priority to those who can't?

[/Quote]

 

All else being equal, no. Rarely is all else equal though. If the result of delayed treatment for the patient without the abilty to pay is more serious than the result of delayed treatment for the patient who can, then the doctor should treat the non-payer first.

 

Or for those who can pay to accept such treatment?

 

See above. The paying patient should defer his treatment in favor of the non-paying patient if the non-paying patient's results due to delayed treatment are more serious than his own would be with delayed treatment. But I don't think this decision is offered to the patient that often, and for good reason. Patients often are not rational due to pain, worry, or injury. They also generally don't have the training and experience to know the relative outcomes of delaying treatment of one patient over another. Doctors do, so I, at least, trust them to make more informed decisions on such things.

 

 

 

This is an argument the health care sector sees a lot, and different nations have come to very different conclusions. What about food? Is it unethical that I have lots to eat while people are starving elsewhere in the world? I could redirect my entertainment budget to charity, and still have lots to eat. Am I unethical for not doing so?

 

Yes, to a degree, you are. And so am I. Letting someone starve so you can watch Hot Tub Time Machine on dvd doesn't sound right, does it?

 

 

 

To a large extent, mind control is just the ability to persuade with certainty. Where do we draw the line between ethical and unethical persuasion? It's not so black and white as "Professor Persuasion is morally wrong to use his natural abilities to influence others to his own best interests." Unless we want to agree that, whenever we use our own advantages to our own benefit, we are also behaving unethically.

 

Last time, since this is the end of the post : Mind Control is not persuasion.

 

As long as we don't agree that it is/isnt, I don't think we're going to get anywhere talking about it.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

It is a good starting point' date=' and you cite good examples. But I would suggest that "legal" and "ethical" are two different animals.[/quote']

 

I propose that it is, in fact, ethical to prevent a greater harm by use of a lesser harm. I am not arguing that it is ethical to use MC for convenience purposes, such as convincing a Cop not to issue you a ticket for speeding to a hospital. Any judge worth his salt would consider the circumstances and probably let you off with a warning (and possibly court costs). Likewise, using mind control to influence the outcome of a company meeting would be unethical, since you'd be undermining others' judgement on what might be good for the company and their own best interests.

 

Besides, in both of the above-cited cases you have the means to redress any perceived inequity by appealing to the proper authorities or at least taking some other action that has greater legitimacy than forcing others to do your bidding against their will.

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Using wealth is bribery (the skill).

Using "I am a rich guy" is a bonus to charm is most circumstances.

 

And please stop using ultra-multi quotings. Reading them is a test of patience, and hardly suiteable for a discussion

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Mind control is persuasion in the same way slipping rohypnol into a girl's drink is romance.

...

Mind Control is an assault, no different from punching people in the face, pointing a gun at them, or slipping drugs into their drinks and allowable under the same circumstances where you would be justified in doing any of those things. Conceivably you could modify Mind Control as a mechanic to the point where it's invisible, costs no energy, and won't persuade anyone to do anything they dislike doing, but Persuasion would probably be cheaper and as effective. And that wasn't what Doctor Mind was doing.

 

I think it depends on the SFX of the Mind Control. If the SFX is that the character is very persuasive then why would it be an assault? I think we're getting too caught up on the game mechanics here. Given the right SFX and limitations, MC could be used as another way to make someone very persuasive. I don't see that as being assault.

 

The question of ethics is much more complicated. I don't agree with the statement made earlier that ethics are binary. There are shades of gray and they aren't there because of a lack of information IMO.

[Cancer]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Hmm. I guess I am surprised by the intensity of opinions, rather than by the opinions themselves. I admit I hadn't considered the issue before.

 

Memo to self: Add "Ask GM's feelings about Mind Control" to the list of must-ask questions about possible participation in a campaign.

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I think it depends on the SFX of the Mind Control. If the SFX is that the character is very persuasive then why would it be an assault? I think we're getting too caught up on the game mechanics here. Given the right SFX and limitations' date=' MC could be used as another way to make someone very persuasive. I don't see that as being assault.[/quote']

Why would the SFX change the in game effects? And these in game effect include how etical it is and how they are viewed. I already said that, but it most likely got lost in the long posts.

 

Mind Controll says that it is taking away the free will, in it's first sentence.

 

When you want to be persuasive, use the interaction skills and slap bonus after bonus on them. Don't use MC if you don't want MC. Don't complain about ethics dicussion, when you use MC.

And don't try to change the game effect (people trying to linch you for mindbending) using an sfx.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

As to tax evaders' date=' it is better to threaten them with imprisonment and seizure of assets (which is what we do) rather than mind control them. They still get to choose which option they want.[/quote']

 

The option they want is freedom to retain their wealth with no obligation to use it, or have it used, for government purposes. No, we don't use Mind Control - we don't have the option.

 

Is it unethical to install a breathalyzer-type device in the automobile of a convicted drunk driver (or, for that matter, would it be unethical to require these be included in all vehicles) which would prevent the vehicle starting if the driver has alcohol levels over a specific level? This denies him the choice of driving the vehicle.

 

Imprisoning a person denies them the choice of committing a crime (or many other choices). Is it unethical? What is the more ethical approach to dealing with criminal behaviour?

 

I think there are lots of situations where denying a choice does not equate to unethical behaviour.

 

Yes' date=' it is more ethical to offer money or fame as an enticement than to use Mind Control. People can turn down money or fame. Also, Mind Control IS NOT persuasion.[/quote']

 

What is it, then? If it is not a sure thing, it is persuasion. How sure a thing persuasion is depends on how persuasive you are. You, and others, seem hung up on the game mechanic. The game mechanic requires rolling dice. It is not a "sure thing", but a "more or less likely" thing.

 

The line is drawn' date=' as said and at a minimum, when the other person has no choice, not even to die rather than comply. [/quote']

 

So it would be more acceptable to have the breathalyzer device trigger an explosive and kill the potential drunk driver if he starts to drive, rather than to prevent him from driving in the first place.

 

Becoming a doctor (or any other highly paid professional that requires an expensive education) is usually a matter of taking advantage of one's birth situation. I have heard that half of all doctors (in the USA at least) are the children of doctors. When there is global equal opportunity' date=' where everyone gets the same health care and nutrition from conception on, and has the same access to education at all levels (no 'richer people have easier access to education' situations) then maybe i will accept that those becoming doctors (or other professionals) do so strictly due to their own 'natural talents'.[/quote']

 

They are using all advantages available to them, aren't they? Is it unethical of people to use their natural abilities in their own best interests? It need not be doctors. Athletes use their talents. Musicians use their talents. Scientists use their talents.

 

Usually not' date=' but it can be. If you're the only one who can do a job in time to prevent an immediately identifiable bad outcome, and you refuse to do it because your compensation demands are not met, then yes, you are acting unethically. Sticking with the doctor example, You're the only doctor in the emergency room when Bill Gates is brought in conscious, but in critical condition. He is going to die in 10 minutes if you do nothing. Nobody else within 10 minutes of the ER has the requisite skills to save him. If you decide that this is the time to negociate with Bill for a $10 billion compensation package for doing your job, then you are acting unethically. Even if it isnt your job (you don't work there) but you do have the skill to save him, the only ethical course of action is to do so, compensation or no. [/quote']

 

That's an easy example. What if I'm the only doctor in a small rural community? Is it unethical of me to move to a larger center where I can see more patients and enhance my earnings? Is it unethical of me not to move from that urban centre to a small rural community? Or not to leave North America to serve a region which has far less per capita medical expertise?

 

The ability itself is not unethical. Abilities have no ethics. People do.

 

BUT, I believe the ability itself, as defined (Undetectable when used, untracable to who used it or what orders were given after the fact) would present such a grave temptation to all but the most towering paragon of ethical behavior, that it is functionally an unethical power.

 

That it can be used unethically does not make it unethical.

 

At the risk of becoming a broken record : Mind Control is not persuasion. Thy are not two points on the same continuum. See earlier comments on why.

 

Once again, is it a sure thing? I believe I can persuade people. I believe I can bribe them. The Mind Controller believes he can control them. All three, under game mechanics, can fail. Mind Control is less likely to fail. At what point on the continuum have I crossed the line to "unethical" in using my abilities to benefit myself? Are other advantages not equally susceptible to unethical use?

 

I am more intelligent, so I apply for a scholarship, and win. The second most intelligent person cannot finance higher education due to their not winning the scholarship. I could have. Did I act unethically in applying for the scholarship? I'm a superior performer, so I get a raise or a promotion. My co-worker does not. Am I unethical for accepting the raise/promotion?

 

The paying patient should defer his treatment in favor of the non-paying patient if the non-paying patient's results due to delayed treatment are more serious than his own would be with delayed treatment. But I don't think this decision is offered to the patient that often' date=' and for good reason. Patients often are not rational due to pain, worry, or injury. They also generally don't have the training and experience to know the relative outcomes of delaying treatment of one patient over another. Doctors do, so I, at least, trust them to make more informed decisions on such things.[/quote']

 

Two patients with the same condition. Let us say both need a hip replacement, and are equally in need. The facilities are available for only one such procedure. How should the patient who receives the hip replacement be chosen? Everything is equal, for this ethical dilemma, except that one can pay and the other cannot.

 

Last time' date=' since this is the end of the post : Mind Control is not persuasion.[/quote']

 

I think it depends on the SFX of the Mind Control. If the SFX is that the character is very persuasive then why would it be an assault? I think we're getting too caught up on the game mechanics here. Given the right SFX and limitations' date=' MC could be used as another way to make someone very persuasive. I don't see that as being assault.[/quote']

 

...I have nothing to add - phookz nailed it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Why would the SFX change the in game effects?

 

How do real life humans, not game designers and game players, determine in game effects?

 

In the game itself, mechanics are used to define the ability itself. A Fire Bolt, an acid bath, an electric shock and a burst of freezing cold can all be defined as Blasts. They can have the same damage, range and other mechanics. They are not the same abilities.

 

Mind Controll says that it is taking away the free will' date=' in it's first sentence.[/quote']

 

As I recall, Teleportation says you move without passing through intervening space, yet it can be purchased and defined as requiring the character to pass through intervening space.

 

When you want to be persuasive' date=' use the interaction skills and slap bonus after bonus on them. Don't use MC if you don't want MC. Don't complain about ethics dicussion, when you use MC.[/quote']

 

If it makes you happy, simply assume enough bonuses to interaction skills that failure is as, or less, likely than using Mind Control.

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Passing through intervening space is a Disadvantage for Teleportation.

 

Not being considered a crime/unethical is an advantage, and a big one.

 

Your blast example is counterproductive:

Blasts, Images, Entagles.... they can all archive similar things as mind controll, mental illusion and mental blast. So why should an SFX give Mind Controll the Advantage of not being percieved as any of those powers: Great infringement on the physical and/or psychical wellbeing of the target?

[Greywind]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

And please stop using ultra-multi quotings. Reading them is a test of patience' date=' and hardly suiteable for a discussion [/quote']Doesn't bother me at all.

[Clonus]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I think it depends on the SFX of the Mind Control. If the SFX is that the character is very persuasive then why would it be an assault?

 

I wouldn't allow that special effect. If a player wants to be very persuasive, then get lots of Persuasion. I also hate it when people get Postcognition with the special effect "I am a great detective".

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

How do real life humans, not game designers and game players, determine in game effects?

 

In the game itself, mechanics are used to define the ability itself. A Fire Bolt, an acid bath, an electric shock and a burst of freezing cold can all be defined as Blasts. They can have the same damage, range and other mechanics. They are not the same abilities.

 

If it makes you happy, simply assume enough bonuses to interaction skills that failure is as, or less, likely than using Mind Control.

 

I would point out that hitting a person with a Fire Bolt, acid bath, electric shock or burst of freezing cold is still assault. If you defined it as “I give them a warm hug” it's assault because you do STUN and/or body damage. If you roll no damage, attempted assault is still unethical.

 

If you make your special effect the most wonderful thing in the world, you are still inflicting harm on someone, even if the special effect is not harm. You can objectively determine that in a game world.

 

I think there is some confusion on mind control vs. persuasion, and both terms are being used as shields. Please try to debate without using either term, as if we were playing Taboo. http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/

 

That may increase productivity in this thread.

 

I can for example state in simple terms: It is wrong to remove the freedom of choice from an agent who possesses the ability to understand the choice. In laymans terms, it is wrong to restrict people's options.

 

If all people were beings of pure moral goodness, we would never need to do this. We do this in real life because people are not beings of moral goodness. However, when we restrict the free agency of individuals, we must examine why we are restricting them and the least limiting way to do it.

 

 

 

Case Study:

Is a car with a built in breathalyzer wrong?

 

Restriction: No longer able to operate that automobile while beyond an objective blood alcohol limit.

 

Reason: Possessing a 100mg/dL BA concentration or higher can result in diminished judgment. This impaired judgment can cause the potential driver to be a hazard to them self, others, or property.

 

The trade off, is a restriction from driving, in return you will not be hit by an intoxicated individual (who is driving an automobile, not physical).

 

I would claim this is a beneficial restriction, although improbable. As long as there is money to be made from a non-breathalyzer car, someone will make it. Either that or there will be instructions on how to disable it, or have a friend start it for you.

 

Also, there is the question: Is someone with impaired judgment (in this case due to alcohol) possessing the ability to understand his choice to drive? If his judgment impaired enough that he does not understand this choice, it is ethical to remove it from him in the first place. Unfortunately we cannot quantify a person's understanding, so there can be no hard or fast limits. That is a question that must be debated as a society, and determined as an individual.

 

 

In HERO games (and I do love HERO games) I don't think very much about special effects, and worry much more about the effect. It's a personal flaw, when I see a blast, I think about how it is constructed rather than what color it was. However in real life the construction is irrelevant with regards to ethics. If you remove free will from an agent, it is unethical. If you build it as Mind Control, that is unethical (because breakout checks are subconscious). If you build it as +30 to all PRE skills, and the GM treats it as if you automagically coerce/force/hug/snuggle/love/reason anyone into compliance with your views (or whatever views you wanted them to have), it is unethical in real life.

 

In a game, NPCs do not have free will. They are not people. They are philosophical zombies. Thus, removing their free will is not unethical. This is because it is A GAME. Players do have free will. they are upset when it is removed. This is why railroading is bad. Note that because it is a game, and because this sometimes happens (NPCs use mind control), we still let the player control a character who has been mind controlled. Otherwise it is the equivalent of telling them to go sit on the couch and watch everyone else play while you play their character.

 

Ironically, if I was so convincing in this post that you had no choice but agree with me; that would be unethical.

 

If you agree with me because of my excellent rationale and examples, you have made the choice that my opinion is correct, and thus have chosen to agree with me which is ethical.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Passing through intervening space is a Disadvantage for Teleportation.

 

It is a direct reversal of the description of the power, and it is completely legal. You asserted that Mind Control must, by definition, rob the target of free will because that is in the book description. The book description of Teleportation is that you do not pass through the intervening space, yet we have powers constructed with Teleportation which DO pass through intervening space. The mechanics are building blocks, not straightjackets.

 

Not being considered a crime/unethical is an advantage' date=' and a big one.[/quote']

 

I am unaware of any country which has criminalized Mind Control. In any case, this is a comparable. If the default is that use of superpowers is considered criminal or unethical, it is an advantage to have a power which is not so considered. I submit, however, that use of most other powers (or any other ability beyond the human average) is not considered criminal or unethical. Pro sports teams are made up of people who are much more athletic and skilled in their sports than I am, and they make a ton of money. Is it unethical for them to use their superior abilities to do so?

 

list dozens of other examples already given here

 

Your blast example is counterproductive:

Blasts, Images, Entagles.... they can all archive similar things as mind controll, mental illusion and mental blast. So why should an SFX give Mind Controll the Advantage of not being percieved as any of those powers: Great infringement on the physical and/or psychical wellbeing of the target?

 

First off, the fact that Mind Control is difficult to perceive from the outset helps a lot. Second, I would suggest that the fact this individual is so very persuasive is likely to be noticed, and persuading people to do ludicrous things is likely to have consequences. If he persuades people to change their vote, buy a time share, name him in the will or join a new religion, it seems unlikely to attract the same attention as if he persuades someone to murder his family, join his cult, become his personal slave or go on a shooting rampage.

 

I submit he is properly judged by the use to which he puts his persuasiveness (natural or supernatural), and not by the simple fact that he is persuasive, or that he chooses to put that talent to use rather than hide away in a closet.

[Pizza Man]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

In real life, I believe all mind controllers will eventually become evil.

 

1) they have a secret ID, making them immune to most prosecution.

2) The temptation to manipulate others and leave no evidence will be overwhelming. Remember power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely!

3) Mind control has the ability to erase memories. Making any thought crime impossible to prosecute.

4) How does anyone prove mind control in court?

 

I known for a fact that I would abuse mind control. Heck I would buy transformation and make mind slaves. I would end up controlling a corporation, and if caught flee to control a small town rebuilding from there.

---In the end, I would have to be killed.

 

Mind control is a power that works in the comics/games but not in real life. Abuse of that power is just too tempting.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I am unaware of any country which has criminalized Mind Control. In any case, this is a comparable. If the default is that use of superpowers is considered criminal or unethical, it is an advantage to have a power which is not so considered. I submit, however, that use of most other powers (or any other ability beyond the human average) is not considered criminal or unethical. Pro sports teams are made up of people who are much more athletic and skilled in their sports than I am, and they make a ton of money. Is it unethical for them to use their superior abilities to do so?

 

list dozens of other examples already given here

 

 

It is not unethical to make money. The way our society is supposed to function is that when you provide a good or service that benefits the society, you are rewarded with money. Pursuit of money is not inherently a bad thing. Making money at the expense of others, or in such a way that others are injured is unethical. Athletes make money at the expense of no one. You could claim that money spent on them is money not spent in a more productive way, but the market has decided that the entertainment they create and the jobs created by the sports industry is valuable. Their high pay not only rewards their prowess, but the very few years they can work and the massive health damage incurred by professional sports

 

 

First off, the fact that Mind Control is difficult to perceive from the outset helps a lot. Second, I would suggest that the fact this individual is so very persuasive is likely to be noticed, and persuading people to do ludicrous things is likely to have consequences. If he persuades people to change their vote, buy a time share, name him in the will or join a new religion, it seems unlikely to attract the same attention as if he persuades someone to murder his family, join his cult, become his personal slave or go on a shooting rampage.

 

I submit he is properly judged by the use to which he puts his persuasiveness (natural or supernatural), and not by the simple fact that he is persuasive, or that he chooses to put that talent to use rather than hide away in a closet.

 

Ease of perception does not effect ethics. All of your examples are unethical. Natural persuasiveness is not unethical because people have the option of ignoring you or saying no. Any persuasiveness (natural or otherwise) that denies these choices is unethical.

 

Please name a use of persuasiveness (to the degree that the recipient cannot say no or deny the desire) that is not unethical. The only examples I can give are “defense of immediate danger to their life or the life of a innocent 3rd party”. Please give other ethical examples for discussion.

 

EDIT: If consent is explicitly given by the target, it is ethical

[Outsider]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I think it depends on the SFX of the Mind Control. If the SFX is that the character is very persuasive then why would it be an assault? I think we're getting too caught up on the game mechanics here. Given the right SFX and limitations' date=' MC could be used as another way to make someone very persuasive. I don't see that as being assault.[/quote']

 

The Bolding is mine.

 

Yes, if there are appropriate limitations on the MC, I could accept it as a way to simulate super-persuasion, except for the fact that Persuasion skill is already in the game. The primary limit on MC persuasion would be that no more than a +10 effect can be achieved. You can talk someone into doing something they are inclined to do anyway, or that they are not normally against doing. But no 'persuading' a faithful spouse to betray their partners, no convincing law abiding people to commit crimes, no convincing a dedicated Christian into abandoning his faith, and so on. The 'persuasion MC that we have been discussing was not presented with that limit, though.

 

 

 

Edit : Looking through the 'similar threads' list below, I see that there was a discussion, Ethics for mentalists, 4 years ago that covers the more or less the same ground. It went to 10 pages.