In this blog post, we will look at how emotion-regulating drugs affect human happiness and social values.
In the movie Equilibrium, humanity establishes the Unified Government of Libria after World War III. About five minutes into the movie, there is a scene where soldiers arrest someone who is hiding the Mona Lisa and burn it. Why is the government burning the Mona Lisa, a historic work of art? When a global war ends and peace returns, scientists and politicians force everyone to take drugs that eliminate emotions, claiming that emotions are the cause of wars, riots, and conflicts around the world. Since artworks like the Mona Lisa and music trigger human emotions, the government wants to eliminate all artworks and musical instruments through the military.
Are emotions necessary for humans? Is it necessary to have the emotion of happiness, but not the emotion of sadness? According to the scientific facts that have been revealed so far, human emotions are not something spiritual, as commonly said in religion, but are the result of chemical substances. In fact, it has been proven that drugs that make people feel good or affect the mind also work through hormones or specific ingredients. In addition, there is a possibility that a chemical drug that can regulate mood without being addictive or causing side effects will be developed in the near future. If there is a drug that eliminates sadness, would it be a good idea to take it? If there is a drug that makes you feel only happiness, would taking it really bring us good results?
This is a very complex problem. Human emotions and the workings of the brain do not follow any specific standards or rules, so it is impossible to conclude that “this is a real emotion” or “the cause of this emotion is this.” In addition, human emotions are too different from one person to another to be generalized. For example, consider the emotion of empathy. Most people feel a little bit of a desire to help when they see someone or an animal in a pitiful situation. However, there are people in our society who cannot empathize, who are called psychopaths. We believe that the emotions that the majority feel are correct and we follow the laws and rules of the majority, but this is not something that nature has determined to be right. So, what criteria should we apply when judging right and wrong? If psychopaths become the majority in the distant future, will empathy become the wrong emotion?
Human value judgments come from social ideas, personal experiences, or unique tastes that exist from birth. Even values that are considered universal, such as good deeds and conscience, may disappear in the distant future. So, what values should we follow? I think it is “maximum achievement for the greatest number.” This concept is derived from the phrase “maximum happiness for the greatest number,” but someone said that happiness may not be what you want, so they used the expression “achievement” instead of “happiness.” Here, “achievement” means the fulfillment of desires, and it is not the emotion of achieving a goal. If a person wants to do something that is not helpful to anyone and is not fun for themselves, then for that person, achievement means doing that thing. At this very moment, people have their own values and desires. There are various desires, such as the desire to eat something, the desire to help someone, and the desire to hit someone. The reason we prohibit hitting others is that most people have a desire to not be hit. This can be seen as a rule for the greatest number of people to be happy. Nowadays, the majority of the global community wants to be happy and peaceful together, and they value social honor. That is why these values have become the basis of social rules. In other words, I would say that rather than determining what is absolutely right and what is wrong, we should protect the values that many people in society value at the moment.
So, from this perspective, how should we judge the act of making someone happy by forcing them to take a drug that makes them feel happy? Most of today’s society guarantees freedom of expression and the freedom to feel the emotions they want without harming others. This is clearly a rule for the greatest number. Therefore, I would like to suggest the following criteria. First, does the person want to take the drug even though they are aware of all of its effects and side effects? Second, does the change in the person caused by the drug cause positive changes in society? Is it convincing to the majority of society and does it have no adverse effects on their emotions?
First, the first criterion is the criterion that must be checked in terms of freedom of decision-making. This is a universal value in today’s society, so it must be guaranteed. Then, why does society prohibit suicide or drug use? This is explained in the second criterion. A person who commits suicide gives the people around him or her the fear of death and creates an atmosphere where suicide is an option. This is an act that violates the desires of many people who do not want to die and who do not want the people around them to die. It may be a bloodless and tearless statement, but suicide should be prohibited because it harms the people around them. Even if it has no side effects and does not directly harm the people around them, it is restricted because it has a social impact.
So, which should take precedence: individual desires or social atmosphere? This question is not simple. It can be seen as similar to utilitarianism, but I believe that the priority is not determined simply by the number of people, but by the concept of “weight.” This weight is determined by social experience and can change at any time. In modern society, all problems stem from weighting. It is true that weighting is difficult, but I believe that if we can create a society where we can constantly discuss and reflect the opinions of all powerless individuals, then at least the weighting will be closer to the ideal value.
Some may think that what I have presented so far is simply utilitarianism. However, the “maximum achievement of the maximum number of people” that I am proposing is different from the utilitarianism that is often referred to. The problem with utilitarianism is that it forces individuals to make sacrifices. To counter this, it can be argued that in a utilitarian society where individuals are forced to make sacrifices, a social atmosphere is created in which all individuals can be sacrificed. This can be seen as a guarantee that the desire to avoid being harmed is not guaranteed. If the majority rejects the minority, will the lives of the majority be enriched and will they not be harmed if they band together? No. There is no guarantee that even within that majority, there will not be a split in the ranks and that they will not become a minority themselves. This is because that society is already a society that sacrifices the minority for the sake of the majority.
Let’s make a value judgment at this point in time when we are living. I listened to the atmosphere, lessons, and thoughts of the people in the movies Gattaca and Equilibrium. Although this is based on personal experience, many people do not want unconditional happiness. Most people want to solve problems on their own and achieve happiness through achievement. They also think that people who get happiness without any cost are absurd, and criticize that society where such a situation is prevalent is impoverished. We know that there are problems in our society, but we want to solve them together rather than wanting the society to disappear. We dislike the emotion of sadness, but we want the happiness that comes after sadness rather than eliminating sadness. The same goes for drugs that control emotions. I think that a society where people become happy for no reason is not beautiful and not right, unless they have mental discomfort. Therefore, I think that drugs that control emotions should be banned.
