Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Immunity To Remorse In A Pill 38

Posted by timothy from the you-won't-regret-taking-it dept.
Erik Baard writes "Several lines of research to prevent the formation of post traumatic stress disorder might also have the effect of stunting the development of healthy feelings of remorse over one's wrongdoings. With such therapies available one day, will soldiers or police officers be less hesitant to use lethal force in questionable situations? Will rapists and murderers qualify for treatment? This Village Voice article explores the ethical implications without pointing to any single answer."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Immunity To Remorse In A Pill More

Immunity To Remorse In A Pill

Comments Filter:

  • Forgive me, CmTaco (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 21, 2003 @05:16PM (#5130094)
    Hello, I am Anonymous Coward, the guy whose comments you can read daily on this fine Web site. What I am about to tell you is not easy for me, however, I will just let my conscience clear.

    I have been trolling Slashdot since its inception. I find guilty pleasure in posting all those first posts, Natalie Portman and hot grits posts, in Soviet Russia and Beowulf clusters posts, as well as information about Stephen King's death or Townsend's pedophily (oh, wait, cross out that one).

    The remorse is killing me. I don't know if you will ever forgive me Taco, but if you don't, my wretched life is a good punishment for such an evil deed.

    Sincerely,
    Anonymous Coward

  • Opposite Effect? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by olrs ( 534447 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2003 @05:16PM (#5130098)
    Could this line of research also lead to the development of a pill that could induce remorseful feelings? If so, what would be the implications of administering such a drug to criminals? Kinda reminds me of a stupid episode of Sliders (yes I know, redundant statment) where they had the 'police' officers who went around medicating everyone... strange.

    • Re:Opposite Effect? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by skywire ( 469351 )
      They were not 'police' officers. They were police officers. They were simply enforcing the law, just as police officers in the US enforce the state's decisions about what we can and cannot ingest. If it is strange for the state to drug everyone, it is no stranger for them to forbid people to drug themselves.

    • Re:Opposite Effect? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward


      without knowing the specific action of this new chemical I would say no, it could not provoke an opposite effect. These types of drugs usually work on HT receptors in the brain, suppressing them, thus allowing open receptors that have been identified with certain emotional pyschological responses a better chance to bind. You're really not releasing any chemicals in the classical sense that one might think of. Pyschological pharmaceutical drugs are little more than specific receptor binders, usually.
    • hey, dork, it's called methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA for short) or, as most of the fear-ridden world knows it as, the evil club-drug ecstasy.

      "damn ravers."

      --
      the junglist movement
  • And there go logged in comments...

  • End of Civilization (Score:3, Interesting)

    by redelm ( 54142 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2003 @05:32PM (#5130261) Homepage
    If effective, this medication would be abused by people with predatory inclinations to increase their predatation or garner soldiers. Without hyperbole, it would deal civilization a crippling blow because it would decrease the costs of predators.

    • The worst of the predators feel no remorse; they're sociopaths.

      • Re:End of Civilization (Score:3, Insightful)

        by redelm ( 54142 )
        Clearly sociopaths are the worst. But do you want to increase their numbers artificially? These pills could be "sociopaths in a bottle".
        • But would a person who isn't a sociopath want to take the pill in the first place, knowing that that is what they would become? It seems to me you'd need a strong desire to be a sociopath to want this, or a strong hatred of a particular person.

          If someone could be forced to take this pill to do a deed, they could almost as easily be forced to do the sociopathic deed without taking the pill. This seems to me to be redundant (unless one wants someone who can still function after commiting an atrocity; I hadn't thought of that possibility before. Anyways, you'd still need to convince them to ignore their scruples and take the pill each time (unless you did it surreptitiously).).

  • What's remorse? (Score:3, Funny)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Tuesday January 21, 2003 @05:39PM (#5130326) Homepage Journal
    Can't say I've ever felt it, unless you mean that feeling you get when your girlfriend cries, that's just a chemical reaction to psychological input.

  • Reminds me of recent stories [ezboard.com] of special forces personnel returning from Afghanistan to the States and harming/murdering their spouses and families.

    • Anti-malarial drugs (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Bowling Moses ( 591924 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2003 @10:04PM (#5132300) Journal
      I think now that the Ft. Bragg murders have been attributed to the use of the antimalarial drug Lariam (aka mefloquine). It apparently has the nasty side effects of making users of it less able to control destructive and/or suicidal behavior and thoughts. This once came up when I was talking to a guy who used to work at the same place as me. He was given mefloquine by his doctor prior to a trip to SE Asia. He said that he had random thoughts pop up like "If I took this razor blade to my hand, I could see all the musculature in my hand just like in an anatomy book." He said he felt safe only if he had to concentrate on something like work; at home to focus on something he took to building models. Effects lasted for about six months and there wasn't anything to do about it but wait. Anyway, that's what happened to a well-adjusted and happy individual, as opposed to someone who just got out of a combat zone and went home to a wife that wanted a divorce like at Ft. Bragg. Ah the power of chemistry.

  • Definitely for the millitary... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sm.arson ( 559130 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2003 @06:45PM (#5130857) Homepage
    They are always getting one step closer to "the perfect soldier." Nanotech stealthsuits, nutrition patches and now drugs that take away guilt and remorse. Murder has never been so easy (uh... probably!).

    The next step would be to have a drug that wipes the memory (it is possible to inhibit the brain's long-term memory "commits" chemically) of the grunts in the field after a certain amount of time has elapsed, making for the ultimate in top-secret, covert missions.

    If nobody remembers the horrendous attrocities, it's like they never happened at all!

  • The perfect drug (Score:3, Funny)

    by Dr. Photo ( 640363 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2003 @06:57PM (#5130933) Journal
    No-Remorse Pills means never having to say you're sorry... :)

  • No Fear? Perfect Soldier? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Madcapjack ( 635982 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2003 @07:09PM (#5131015)
    The article in the Village Voice says: "Feelings of guilt and regret travel neural pathways in a manner that mimics the tracings of ingrained fear, so a prophylactic against one could guard against the other."

    Some thoughts:

    1) Is a fearless soldier actually an asset? I'm not so certain that it is. Fear keeps soldiers alive, and keeps them shooting. Fearless soldiers might be scary as hell, but they might just be easy targets too because they aren't cautious. Another possible problem with fearless soldiers is that they might not be afraid to disobey orders, or whatever they feel the hell like doing.

    2) Is a guiltless soldier actually an asset? Will the removal of guilt-feelings weaken the bond between soldiers which is essential to their military effectiveness? Will they be more susceptible to infighting?

    any thoughts, please?

    • Fear keeps soldiers alive, and keeps them shooting.

      Actually, soldiers who are afraid often don't fire their guns. That would require exposing oneself to the enemy.

      "Samuel Lyman Atwood (S. L. A.) Marshall developed a method of analyzing the actions of infantrymen in battle during World War II, and his findings and methodology have become controversial, especially during the past decade. According to Marshall, only about 15 percent of United States infantry soldiers fired their weapons in combat during World War II, and this number never increased to much higher than 25 percent for even the best of American units."
      • "Samuel Lyman Atwood (S. L. A.) Marshall developed a method of analyzing the actions of infantrymen in battle during World War II, and his findings and methodology have become controversial, especially during the past decade. According to Marshall, only about 15 percent of United States infantry soldiers fired their weapons in combat during World War II, and this number never increased to much higher than 25 percent for even the best of American units."

        I assume that by infantry you mean those soldiers actually on the battle front? The majority of any army is made up of support staff of various kinds.

        This is an interesting point you raise.

        • I assume that by infantry you mean those soldiers actually on the battle front?

          That's what I've inferred from reports on this report, although you would have to find Mr. Marshall's original report to find out his actual methodology.
    • A fearless soldier would be a tremendous asset. Sometimes doing the "right" thing (as defined by military strategy) may also be the most fear-inducing thing. For example, when under enemy machinegun fire, troops are supposed to keep moving so they are not pinned in and come under artillery attack. How many people would actually keep moving while under heavy machine-gun fire? This pill could actually save (American GI) lives if soldiers are not paralyzed by fear and can actually use their training effectively.

    • I disagree. Are you afraid to cross the street? No? Oh, therefore you're just going to charge across without excercising caution, right? No, no you're not.

      Being fearless doesn't mean you're a berserker. Being fearless gives you that extra degree of self control. It's the coward that loses self control in the face of danger.

    • a guiltless soldier will kill americans enmasse if we ever rise up off our damn yokes against the government. an ordinary soldier might defect and join the populace if the entire civilian population revolts against a police state.
      • a guiltless soldier will kill americans enmasse if we ever rise up off our damn yokes against the government. an ordinary soldier might defect and join the populace if the entire civilian population revolts against a police state.

        Just where do you think they get soldiers from? On top of that, 54% of the army is in the reserve components, distinguishable from the populace only by their shorter hair, and sometimes not even that. It's everyone's military, folks. If it's full of the conservative and uneducated, then it's your own damn fault for not joining (hint: it's easy to excel when you're surrounded by conservatives and uneducated)

        My favorite example of this is Bill Clinton. He had all the work in place to dodge the draft, but did it discreetly so as not to damage his political future. He wanted to lead americans, just not ones whose lives depended on good leadership. How much better off would the world be if he had stepped up to that responsibility and met that need? We wouldn't have had to scrape the bottom of the barrel until we found Bill Calley. No one today would know the name My Lai, because nothing would have happened there. It makes me sick that he was the one who decorated the soldiers who tried to stop the atrocity for two reasons- it shouldn't have taken that long, and he and others like him could have prevented it in the first place.

        The guiltlessness problem that we have here is among civilians. They blame an institution for the actions of its members while refusing to take ownership of it and change its demographics. Face it- we all own the military, just as we own its reputation. Being too good or too busy to join reduces its potential. Do you actually want the world to see of us only the people that you think aren't as good or valuable as you? Most people do, because they get to point to what happens and congratulate themselves on being smart enough not to join.

        Maybe this will help. The last formal function I had to go to had a series of toasts, and there was a noticeable drop in volume when they got to the "to the president of the United States." That made me feel better about being in than I have in a while.

        Before I go, buswolley, I have to clarify something else. You need to throw off your yoke. The only damn thing you need to rise up off of is your ass. Maybe you aren't really the kind of person we need after all.

        • what a useless, but heart-felt reply. I simply put out that the idea that an army made of guiltless individuals would feel no shame to turn on their own citizens.
          • ...army made of guiltless individuals would feel no shame to turn on their own citizens.

            Which is precisely my point. Guilt is irrelevant in the face of motivation. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, and every young private is taught that. If you want them to fire into a crowd, you're going to have to convince them of the rightness and legality of it. If they believe that they're doing the right thing and the law allows it, then feelings of guilt don't enter into it. Any civilian who worries about the moral makeup of the military is personally to blame, because they've neglected to alter it by chipping in. It isn't that hard.

  • already tested and tried (Score:4, Funny)

    by f64 ( 590009 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2003 @07:32PM (#5131228) Homepage
    this could explain much [georgebush.com] of what's been going on lately...
  • must have been popping these all this time. Otherwise he'd have stopped long ago.

  • Hardly news... (Score:2, Funny)

    by thedji ( 561789 )
    I've consumed these pills that makes you feel good about everything before... Hardly a new discovery.

    I think mine was called Ecstasy though...
  • Wasn't there a Simpsons episode where Lisa read about the impending market release of a "minty gel" that eliminates guilt? Life imitates art once again.

  • What about morals before the atrocities? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jericho4.0 ( 565125 ) on Wednesday January 22, 2003 @03:42AM (#5133607)
    The article postulates a pill that a soilder could take to remove feelings of guilt after the soilder does something that would normally leave him remorse ridden.

    I don't get it. Does this mean the soilder's moral base rests on the fear of future remorse? He doesn't feel bad about tourture/slaughter/nastiness, but worries he will later?

    IMO, most people function diffently.

    Regardless, with the combination of training and drugs we could make pyscopathic soilders easily. Most grunt types seem pretty close already.

  • Ouch. (Score:2)

    by Omkar ( 618823 )
    Controlling human behavior is the biggest ethical/practical biomedical issue I see today, but it's been ignored in the media at large. Drugs are banned for a reason folks (though the /. crowd may not agree) - they make society crumble.
  • Every thing that you do think or say, is in the pill that you took that day woe woe..

Slashdot Top Deals

How many hardware guys does it take to change a light bulb? "Well the diagnostics say it's fine buddy, so it's a software problem."

Close