Well, as I say, I haven't made up my mind yet. I consider it
conceivable that extinction would be more ethical.
This is presupposing that the subject of reprogramming didn't
have a "living will" or some such detailing "what to do if
I get too weird for you" in the case of what are generally
called "the mentally ill".
"a violent person would thank you after the reprogramming"--
ah, this is sometimes called "retroactive consent".
"You'll thank me for this later, whoever you are _then_."
You might be right, but would that be the same person?
No worries, we'll just keep tweaking until whatever's left
*does* thank us.
Ever read anything by Robert M. Pirsig, especially his
second book, _Lila_?
At a minimum, I'd prefer that such activity be done with
explicit consciousness on the part of the reprogrammers
that they _might_ not know what they're talking about.
Provide perspective to the subject: Keep a copy of the
old personality around, just in case, and provide some
A/B - B/A comparisons: do both personalities agree that
B is better off? If not, then what?
If we're going to stick with the notions of "self" we have now,
I would feel better if everyone could choose integrity or death.
Getting someone else's definition of "fixed" is a third choice.
This is only because I don't know if I know what's best, and I
_sure_ don't know if a bunch of strangers I've never met do.
I come down strongly in favor of this mythical thing
called "choice".
Thanks for the opportunity to think about this.
MMB
BOUNCE WARNING: A simple reply to the above address will fail. If you wish
to send me a _noncommercial_ message, kindly substitute a hyphen for the
asterisk.