Is it ethical to socially engineer a paranoid society?

[Kriminal99]

Say hypothetically that a certain level of "paranoia" or exposure to random punishment causes human beings to look more carefully for further sources of potential punishment. Say this causes them to be more intelligent in a very important sense... If they are designers, they anticipate every potential problem. In general learning, they predict every potential use and additional meaning of what they learn- and thus learn at a hyper accelerated rate. They thrive on preparedness and as a result they are more efficient in everything that they do.

However, due to the nature of their condition, they are somewhat less happy then their "non-paranoid" counterparts. In short they are more sensitive to random punishment and feel as though they are receiving it when others may simply be oblivious.

Lets call a member of this society a "paranid".

Normal people may be oblivious to potential sources of danger that these people are aware of. So a normal person may be randomly exposed to one of these sources of danger and be completely unprepared. They may be hurt worse than the "paranid" and look up at the sky asking why. But at that point it could be argued that they simply become a little more like the paranid person, but only as much as necessary.

On the other hand a "paranid" would have developed better coping mechanisms, to the point where many types of issues would have little to no marginal effect on their feelings.

To create such a society, you might see many spartan like or militaristic practices in education. In these people might be thrown into unfriendly (but survivable) and unfamiliar environments where they had to use their wits to achieve any goals. They might also be treated in a harsh manner in a way that can be understood and overcome.

If this allows society as a whole to be more efficient and better prepared for problems, is there any reason it still might be considered unethical?

[kmarinas86]

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

If this allows society as a whole to be more efficient and better prepared for problems, is there any reason it still might be considered unethical?

Yes. There are medical reasons, such the reasons why you shouldn't shout at an old lady's face, or drop a baby from a three story building, even if it prepares you for something else, such as someone doing the same crap to you.

[Michaelangelica]

Q-Is it ethical to socially engineer a paranoid society?
A-No it isn't, but conservatives have remained in power with this tactic for eons.

[Kriminal99]

Originally Posted by kmarinas86

Yes. There are medical reasons, such the reasons why you shouldn't shout at an old lady's face, or drop a baby from a three story building, even if it prepares you for something else, such as someone doing the same crap to you.

Your examples are obviously a bit off from what the question had in mind and would seem to serve little purpose.

The main point to be made here is that life naturally has ups and downs, that average people are ill equipped to deal with and just learn a little bit every time they face a problem. Once they adapt to that problem similar things can occur in the future and they will not be affected by it as much. I tend to think of this as the person being more mature.

Conditioning a society would simply consist of creating problematic situations like this, that they very well might have encountered later on in life anyways, early on so that there are not just a bunch of 30 yr olds going on 13 running around causing drama between themselves and other people, and that are able to deal with a variety of problems by having obtained a greater efficiency in achieving goals in general.

[Buffy]

You've defined no terms here.

If its simply having people go through a learning process to deal with difficult situations, then its hard to argue against.

By using a heavily loaded but undefined term such as "paranoia" you generate strong reactions to your completely undefined social experiment, seemingly in hopes of catching people in a contradiction of logic.

Is that your intent? If not, why use such loaded terms as "paranoia?" Why are you not outlining the specific social policy actions you see as bringing about the goals you wish? Heck, why don't you define your goals?

If you really mean "paranoia" in the sense of bringing about the kinds of human reactions that would be defined as clinically abnormal behavior, do you see any downside to this?

Can you think of a more constructive way to pose this issue that might engender a positive discussion?

Smile, it's better than a poke in the eye,
Buffy

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

Say hypothetically that a certain level of "paranoia" or exposure to random punishment causes human beings to look more carefully for further sources of potential punishment. Say this causes them to be more intelligent in a very important sense... If they are designers, they anticipate every potential problem. In general learning, they predict every potential use and additional meaning of what they learn- and thus learn at a hyper accelerated rate. They thrive on preparedness and as a result they are more efficient in everything that they do.

However, due to the nature of their condition, they are somewhat less happy then their "non-paranoid" counterparts. In short they are more sensitive to random punishment and feel as though they are receiving it when others may simply be oblivious.

Lets call a member of this society a "paranid".

Normal people may be oblivious to potential sources of danger that these people are aware of. So a normal person may be randomly exposed to one of these sources of danger and be completely unprepared. They may be hurt worse than the "paranid" and look up at the sky asking why. But at that point it could be argued that they simply become a little more like the paranid person, but only as much as necessary.

On the other hand a "paranid" would have developed better coping mechanisms, to the point where many types of issues would have little to no marginal effect on their feelings.

To create such a society, you might see many spartan like or militaristic practices in education. In these people might be thrown into unfriendly (but survivable) and unfamiliar environments where they had to use their wits to achieve any goals. They might also be treated in a harsh manner in a way that can be understood and overcome.

If this allows society as a whole to be more efficient and better prepared for problems, is there any reason it still might be considered unethical?

Are you dealing with reality or fiction?

What is the source of that which is to be feared? Is it a god, nature, other human beings?

[nutronjon]

We could the Prussians and later influential people in the US have engineered paranoid societies for the purpose of enhancing their own power. Hitler's New World Order sharing much in common with Bush's New World Order. But you don't seem to be talking about reality.

[Michaelangelica]

The far right has always done well on a policy of FEAR.

My 90 YO mother in law is terrified of terrorists.
She lives 100K north of Sydney and her statistical chances of being attacked by a terrorist is NIL.

[modest]

The level of paranoia is directly proportional to the level of danger in an ordinary person. For example, I get a little paranoid when everybody's looking at me - I get a lot paranoid when everybody's looking at me and holding weapons. So how can your question be answered sensibly Kriminal99? Is it ethical to put an entire society in mortal danger?... my gut says no. There might be some small ethics problems associated with that.

-modest

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by modest

The level of paranoia is directly proportional to the level of danger in an ordinary person. For example, I get a little paranoid when everybody's looking at me - I get a lot paranoid when everybody's looking at me and holding weapons. So how can your question be answered sensibly Kriminal99? Is it ethical to put an entire society in mortal danger?... my gut says no. There might be some small ethics problems associated with that.

-modest

You are confusing a real danger with an imagined one. Unless someone is presently threatening you with a gun, you should not be living in fear of this person.

Straus was a Jew who came out of Nazi Germany, and went into one of our major colleges as a professor. He taught political philosophy and basically he taugh- to be a strong leader everyone must fear an enemy. If you don't have one, you better make one up, and that’s exactly what you find in the Bush administration. People should really take this more seriously and do their own research, and come to their own conclusion.

Much of what is happening today, can be linked by to Freud, and concepts of the subconscious, and Macchiavelli's understanding of using fear for strong leadership. This knowledge can be used to generate mass paranoia, and it is what makes a military state strong. The US is the greatest military power on earth. Before WWII, the US was almost completely unprepared for war, and did not have the war industry that it has had since WWII. This is a radical change in the US. It was Bush's and Cheney's intent to make the US a strong military power engaged in the mid east, before 911. This is laid out in the New Century American Project.