There are some very limited situations where a pill that can change someone's ideology could have some ethical uses.
Imagine a would-be ideologically-motivated terrorist concocted a plot that would kill hundreds of people but he was arrested before he could harm anyone. In the course of the plot, he committed enough crimes that he will be put in a supermax prison for the rest of his life.
Is it more ethical to keep this person in a solitary confinement--allowed out of his cell only one hour a day--for the next forty years or give him the option of taking a pill that will make him stop wanting to murder people in the name of his ideology and instead put him on parole until it's clear the pill worked?
I'd argue offering the pill is far more humane than life in solitary confinement.
A tool like this obviously should not be used to "reform" people who are socially different (e.g. Alan Turing); the scenario I propose here is only applicable to people whose violent politics make them too dangerous to let out of prison.
> Is it more ethical to keep this person in a solitary confinement ... for the next forty years or give him the option of taking a pill that will make him stop wanting to murder people in the name of his ideology and instead put him on parole until it's clear the pill worked?
First, it is very unlikely that a person who is so commited to some idea to be ideologically-motivated terrorist, would voluntarily accept pill that forces ideological change.
Second, there is already something similar. In some countries there is option for people that committed sexual crimes (e.g. chil rape) and have uncontrollable urges to accept chemical castration in order to get parole. It is generally viewed as human rights violation.
Imagine a would-be ideologically-motivated terrorist concocted a plot that would kill hundreds of people but he was arrested before he could harm anyone. In the course of the plot, he committed enough crimes that he will be put in a supermax prison for the rest of his life.
Is it more ethical to keep this person in a solitary confinement--allowed out of his cell only one hour a day--for the next forty years or give him the option of taking a pill that will make him stop wanting to murder people in the name of his ideology and instead put him on parole until it's clear the pill worked?
I'd argue offering the pill is far more humane than life in solitary confinement.
A tool like this obviously should not be used to "reform" people who are socially different (e.g. Alan Turing); the scenario I propose here is only applicable to people whose violent politics make them too dangerous to let out of prison.