I'd like to see a test run and some studies before I would really have any opinion. Unconstituional maybe, but would the world be a better place? Would people be happier? Everyone would be safer. If its to stop people from physically harming one another I can't see why it would be a bad thing, as long as there werent bad side effects or something.
computers can't necessarily tell the difference between when it is necessary to harm someone (i.e. guy with gun breaks into your home and threatens to shoot your family) or when not to. it wouldn't work unless that kind of thing was overcome.
On Wednesday 3/13/13 - 9:03:06 PM Inquizitor2 wrote: computers can't necessarily tell the difference between when it is necessary to harm someone (i.e. guy with gun breaks into your home and threatens to shoot your family) or when not to. it wouldn't work unless that kind of thing was overcome.
When is it necessary to hurt someone when they're not able to hurt you?
I can say that it would definitely be unconstitutional with absolute certainty, in America at least
as to whether it's a good thing: I'm not willing to say it's not intrinsically wrong, but assuming it isn't: it would depend on what we mean by "harm". and I'd be concerned about who was in charge of making that decision, and from where they derived that power
That's an interesting point. The way I was thinking of it was the chip monitoring the brain to prevent the body from carrying out any harmful actions, so there would be no governing body, it's just whatever the person considers harmful, which is why accidents can happen, hence my inclusion of the word 'purposefully'. I guess it wouldn't work too well for mentally ill individuals, who I guess are more prone to violent outbursts. It's not really relevant to the politics of the question, but it wouldn't necessarily stop all violence.