It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Circumventing Anothers Free Will

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I've been pondering that fact that, just as you can avoid telling the truth without having to tell a lie, you can manipulate people into doing what you want without them being overtly 'forced' into doing it. I've been trying to come up with a thought experiment that pushes this to extremes so as to see if it can be done within any kind of moral framework. This is what I've got -

Mary Jane is Ill. You cannot tell her she is ill, if you do, her and your heads will explode. Her illness is infectious and infecting you and those around you. The illness is not life threatening but does reduce one's quality of life to variable degrees covering a broad spectrum. You have the cure, yay! How do you gain permission to administer it?

You can not mention her being ill.

You can not discuss the illness itself although the symptoms are up for discussion in different contexts.

I almost put you can not lie, but I think that's too interesting a variable. This should be considered with as much moral fortitude as you can muster though.

(Just to clarify, this is not about vaxination!)

My main reason for thinking about this is trying to come to terms with the idea of tacit consent. Tacit Consent - Blacks law Dictionary

Oh and this may not seem philosophical or metaphysical but I assure you it is, if I told you why my head would explode.




posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Its easy, you dont tell her she is ill but you tell her she is has an infectious disease that has no direct negative affect on her, that will be passed on to hundreds of people. If she takes the cure, she will help so many others. The only lies you have said,is that she is not ill. These of course form part of the rules of the game you have set. So.... its not quiet a lie but of a rule, a rule to omit part of the truth.a reply to: March of the Fire Ants



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: March of the Fire Ants

Well through a string of events you could convince "Mary Jane" to accept the cure under the pretext is was for another ailment, possibly a global syndrome? I can not think of a way to convince her to accept this "cure" without lying to her on some varying degree. Though if it was truly in her best interest; would it not be for the greater good to manipulate her in this way?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Hmm I suppose you're going on the difference between being HIV positive and having Aids kind of thing.. I appreciate what you're saying but I think her head might still explode. Did I mention the rules would be cleared up/changed as (if) this progressed? :p Ideally I would like any lies not to relate to Mary directly..reply to: ancientthunder



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 12:38 AM
link   
You're just talking about tricking someone into doing something? Free will isn't really part of that equation. Willing and Acting are related, but separate.

Action usually follows Will:
You want to watch a movie (that's your Will), and then you watch it (that's the Action).

Often, though, we will something without acting on it:
Your boss treats you like crap, and you want to hit him, but you don't.

If you are forced or manipulated into doing something, that's just Action without Will.

So metaphysically speaking, even slaves have free will. The will is what's inside you, that no one else can touch. It's what you would do if you could. If you want to screw with someone's free will, you'd have to do something like brainwashing.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I suppose another ailment might work but the treatment is pretty serious, it would need to be a big and good lie to work and you'd have to come clean in the end.. could work. a reply to: SupermassiveBlackHOLE

The best I've come up with is to use a proxy, IE someone else (Mr X) who may or may not truly have the same condition (potential small lie?!). Ask Mary how she how she might go about curing him (again, without his direct consent). So then she is presented with the same conundrum as you are and proceeds to provide tacit consent... IE She says "if I was Mr X I would cure him regardless of whether he knew or not"

How does that sit morally?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 01:01 AM
link   
A very interesting tangent. I would argue that a persons Will and Free Will are a little different. So lets say will power is the driving force to complete an action that is in a persons mind. The free part, for me, would necessitate that the idea behind that action was self-generated rather than externally implanted, as in my OP. I would also say that your Hitting the boss situation has more to do with suppressing one desire and pursuing another, either of which could have been willed freely if you chose. I agree that action follows will but I say the freedom of action is restricted by various factors. In your example you refrain from hitting him why? Because your free will has been usurped by an absurd economic situation? Fear of Authority? Brainwashing indeed.

"The will is what's inside you, that no one else can touch." Perhaps, but your freedom to express it...?

This is a bit off topic but I like it!
Bra a reply to: MoreInterior



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: March of the Fire Ants
In your example you refrain from hitting him why? Because your free will has been usurped by an absurd economic situation? Fear of Authority? Brainwashing indeed.

"The will is what's inside you, that no one else can touch." Perhaps, but your freedom to express it...?

This is a bit off topic but I like it!
Bra a reply to: MoreInterior



No, the Will has not been affected. You are free to want to hit him. The wanting is the Will. Only the Action is restricted. Brainwashing would be control of your thoughts to make you not want what you want.

It's a trap of false logic to go down the "but wanting to avoid the consequences is also Will" street. Because, the real Will is still that you could do it but not face consequences.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Hmm, but if Action is the physical manifestation of Will, and action is restricted, is that not a restriction of (free) Will? Are we arguing over semantics? What is the value of unexpressed Will? Does it still count as Will, or is it as insignificant as the alternative sentence structures I deleted while writing this? I feel like I should read up on Freewill and Willpower in general. a reply to: MoreInterior



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: March of the Fire Ants
Hmm, but if Action is the physical manifestation of Will, and action is restricted, is that not a restriction of (free) Will? Are we arguing over semantics? What is the value of unexpressed Will? Does it still count as Will, or is it as insignificant as the alternative sentence structures I deleted while writing this? I feel like I should read up on Freewill and Willpower in general. a reply to: MoreInterior



The Action isn't the manifestation. What happens as a result of the Action is the manifestation of the Will only after the Action's been carried out in accordance with the Will.

The value of unexpressed Will is: Not much.
Simply thinking "I'd like it if there were no more diseases or famine," but then going back to a self-absorbed lifestyle, of course does not make one a great person. Alternatively, wishing death on someone who hurt you, does not make you a killer.

When you act, the result gives your Will form. When a thing's had a form, even fleetingly, it will exist for eternity. A thing given no form has no real essence, and therefore no permanent existence.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 03:06 AM
link   
So you tell her "I have been feeling these symptoms... I took this and it made me feel better..."

If Mary has the same illness, she will have the same symptoms, and become aware of those symptoms because you merely mentioned them. She will then take the cure as well. The symptoms are real, but the realization of them were psychosomatic.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: March of the Fire Ants

Avoid Typhoid Mary. You know. Like the plague.

I'll be here all week, try the veal.


Honestly, there is too much stock placed on what we're entitled to control. Bad stuff happens, being everyone's policeman creates more problems than it cures.
Some would argue that my point of view is not conducive to a progressive society, or even a particularly safe society. But I do think that life is about personal responsibility, not everyone's responsibility to everybody else and their dog.

If you amended the hypothetical question to being "Mary Jane is a close, loved one" then the matter becomes personal and I would place the cure in a visible location, perhaps with some literature nearby. Take whatever precautions are necessary (if possible) to avoid said illness yourself. You're respecting her ability to take care of herself, but keeping yourself safe regardless of her choice.
edit on 10-11-2016 by Unresponsible because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: March of the Fire Ants

I love playing "what if" and I really want to play, but I'm having trouble understanding the context... obviously neither Mary's nor our heads will explode if we tell her the truth, so perhaps that's where I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this. Is Mary perhaps mentally impaired in such a way that she cannot properly understand that she is sick? Or does not understand the threat she poses to others? In which case, is it really a matter of "free will" if she does not have the capacity to consider all pertinent factors and make a decision accordingly.

Or does she know and not care? Or worse, she wants to make others ill? In which case, her conscious and deliberate "will" is negatively impacting others, and therefore is a violation of others' rights and free will. Much the same as if someone is robbing me at gunpoint and I hand over my purse, but don't tell him I have a wad of cash stuffed in my bra... I am under no obligation to tell this person who is harming me the truth, the whole truth and nuttin' but the truth.

If she is simply not mentally and/or emotionally able to understand the threat she poses to others, then why explain anything? Perhaps simply quarantine her until she is no longer contagious... or put the medication in her food/drink unawares? (Much like a parent may do with a child or pet)

What am I missing here???



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Excellent answer, it could take quite a bit of time depending on how obvious the symptoms are and how quickly she catches on but yeah, nice. a reply to: DeadCat



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Unresponsible

Haha avoiding her is probably wise to some extent! I like your answer, it leaves things in her hands and respects her free will. Some would regard it as apathetic or negligent though, certain authorities may put pressure on you to find a more direct solution.. Anyway no need to take it that far.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   
The fact that you have to have money in order to live is a great example of non-force being used to control people.

The more money you have, the more freewill you have.

Unless God is a banker, I wasn't never given too much freewill, only enough to fit inside my wallet each paycheck I get.



Religion seems to be the illusion here sadly, reality keeps proving these concepts just aren't where we want them to be.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   
First do no harm



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

You're not missing anything! I'm trying to think something through and you're all helping me massively, love your response!

So no, obviously heads will not literally explode but still the fact remains that you cannot discuss it, at all ever. Ok so, Mary and your perspectives are very different. She has lived with what she sees as fairly insignificant symptoms for most of her life, indeed she has helped several other people deal with these symptoms so she understands them very well. She does not however understand the cause of the illness and finds it difficult to connect the cure even when waved in front of her face! You can see how destructive it has actually been for her and how simple it would be to be free of it.

Ah so her being contagious can potentially violate anothers right to be healthy and this can justify ignoring her free will completely. Interesting that you brought up parental consent, I think the grown up version is Power of Attorney as used when parents are in old peoples homes and such. I'm not sure this disease is quite debilitating enough to warrent that from a legal perspective.

Sneaking treatment in without her knowledge.. well now that seems like a complete violation of her free will but if you can get away with it then why not. I suppose she might even thank you, should she find out..



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 09:18 AM
link   
You could argue that one can live without money, some manage it. You only need it to participate in certain things (almost all things, granted). I agree with you to an extent, we're so entrenched in the money paradigm it's hard to realistically imagine it being different. a reply to: Tranceopticalinclined



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: March of the Fire Ants

Do you have a realistic scenario in mind that also contemplates the same question?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join