|
Edited on Fri Nov-28-08 12:37 AM by Boojatta
Introduction to the question of this thread:
Have you ever read or seen any science fiction story involving a person causing a machine to self-destruct by speaking with the machine? I'm not referring to a fictional machine that was designed to have a self-destruct mechanism actuated by means of a spoken password. The machine converses like a person. A real person might converse, lose an argument, and get angry. The machine converses, loses an argument, and reacts by self-destructing.
Suppose that a politician believes that most voters are unreasonable and that they aren't as sophisticated as they consider themselves to be. In effect, the politician believes that voters are like machines who have secret passwords that even the voters themselves aren't aware of. The passwords won't cause the voters to self-destruct. However, the politician believes that the passwords allow him or her to control the voting behavior of voters.
We then get a situation as bizarre as the above science fiction scenario. The politician interacts with people the way that a computer hacker interacts with computers. However, the politician just uses words. For example, the politician doesn't even try to use hypnosis or drugs.
The question of this thread (not to be confused with the poll question):
If the politician genuinely wishes to make gradual reforms to create greater justice and carefully monitors his or her impact to avoid violating anybody's rights, then would it be unethical for the politician to use the general approach that I described above? (This question is to be discussed and not to be voted on here.)
|