I find our discussion of pills and brainwashing to be woefully incomplete. All I got was a vague "yeah, sometimes pills are abused and that's bad, but sometimes they're not". I was hoping for a deeper exploation of the nature of free will and the consequences of removing it.
I sometimes see this used as a proof for the non-existence of God. The argument is that God appears to be unable or unwilling to override the free will of murderers, rapists and other evil-doers. Therefore, God doesn't exist. The argument is obviously flawed, in that it skips a few steps and completely fails to distinguish between active action, passive action and inaction.
The thing I find odd is the fact that this argument presupposes that overriding someone else's free will is the most moral action you can choose.
This is odd, because I was always taught the exact opposite. I believe that overriding someone else's free will is an intrinsic evil. "Intrinsic evil" meaning it is always wrong, no matter what the circumstances. A good example of "overriding someone else's free will is always wrong" is rape. Rape is always wrong, no matter what the circumstances.
And the primary reason rape is wrong is that it destroys the natural dignity people have, by overriding their free will and treating them as objects, not as people. Of course, there are also secondary reasons why rape is wrong, relating to sexuality and gender. Please note that these are not called "secondary reasons" because they are less important, but because they can change from rape to rape, depending on the sexualities and genders of the parties involved.
Question I've Been Leading Up To: Is brainwashing someone (through pills or another means) the moral equivalent of mind rape? In both cases, you forcibly override their free will, which is always evil.