Slaves in the Garden

Several days ago, Captain Vikarion demonstrated some interesting reasoning in a discussion with Ciarente. I held my tongue during the conversation, as I find it best to think for a time before proclaiming my stance on this or that issue. Unprepared, I remained silent and mulled over his words and hers as well.

These, then, are my thoughts. Before I can discuss whether or not it is right to alter with implants a person's ability to make certain choices, I must determine whether or not people always have the right to act on the choices they make.

I say they do not. We all have the right to feel a certain way, to believe certain things, but we do not have the right to follow our beliefs in any way we may wish. We may certainly have the power, but strength alone is not virtue. We have a right to upright action, a right to be good. We may use our power of choice, of thought and action, to be evil, to uphold false action, but that is not our right. It is simply an option and not one equal to its alternative.

Indeed, the power of law has traditionally rested on the ability to constrain ones actions if the actions in question are evil. It is why there are prisons, executions and slavery. Through the power of law, we can remove entire fields of action from the realm of choice. All nations do this; they must to survive.

I conclude, then, that the right to act on ones choices is not always present. It is conditional and other actors have the right to limit the actions one may undertake. The next question is whether or not an implant that constrains behavior is an immoral method of doing so compared to the other methods that may be chosen.

I say it is not. Compared to execution, it is a great improvement. It offers freedom for people who would otherwise be imprisoned and eases concerns about the safety of those around them. In effectiveness it is supreme, as there is no method by which the person may regress. His mind can shift, of course, can retain to evil thoughts and desires, but he could not act on them.

My conclusion seems inevitable: there is nothing morally wrong with using an implant to limit a person's ability to act, so long as the behavior thus barred is an evil one. The person still retains the ability to formulate intention, which leaves them free as a moral actor. They are free to be good or evil as they will. They are not free to let their bad decisions bring wrack and ruin upon the people around them, which is as it should be.

If, however, you were to ask me, as Captain Vikarion seemed to, if a chip should be used to disallow a person from forming certain thoughts, my answer would be different. I would say no, it is always evil to do so. To take from the soul it's ability of moral agency, it's ability to form desires and choose among them, is the greatest of all evils. How can a man be a good one if he cannot resist temptation within his heart? Such a thing is abomination, a return to the Garden the poet Shariruent spoke of, where we lived as beasts until the great-heart souls rebelled and took up their human nature.

No, I say, we must remain as men in this world, human beings and not beasts of flesh and silicon. I will not be a slave in some Garden of hollow eyes and empty hearts. But perhaps Captain Vikarion, who has always been good to me and those around us, mispoke. Perhaps he conflated act and thought too closely for the sake of expedience. Perhaps.