‘Morality pills’ may be the US’s best shot at ending the coronavirus pandemic, according to one ethicist | By Parker Crutchfield |Associate Professor of Medical Ethics, Humanities and Law, Western Michigan University | August 10, 2020
My research in bioethics focuses on questions like how to induce those who are noncooperative to get on board with doing what’s best for the public good.
First of all, this is a rejection of how our moral philosophy has developed for 2000 years, which recognizes the importance of the individual’s free will and conscience. An expression of these principles is found in, for example, the U.S. Bill of Rights and in the Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms. Here is part of it:
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
. . .
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
One of these is the freedom of conscience which is highly contested by the control pushers.
A lot of people seem to have never heard of these and I don’t think that’s an accident. That’s because there has been a gradual process to destroy the principles that upheld the value and worth of each person. This sense of value is necessary for a civilized community to function.
These don’t depend on one document. These are principles protect us from oppressive and abusive tendencies in human nature. That’s why we say that they are God-given or natural, because they are about dealing with human realities and needs–survival, dignity and happiness.
When we are not taught rights and freedoms and the need to protect them, that’s because we weren’t putting them front and center, we weren’t getting involved in watching what has been really going on. So we end up being prey to tyrants, their money and their seductive dogmas. We give up the cherished principles of generations for false promises of security.
Second, the author seems to think that people are immoral because they don’t want to wear masks and “cooperate.”
No, they are moral because their minds and instincts tell them that everyone is being conned and lied to. They understand that their rights are being deliberately violated with a lot of bogus stories, threats and intimidation. The onus is on the other side–to justify why they are going along with untested, contradictory stories, threats and pay-offs.
The number of deaths he cites attributed to COVID-19 have been inflated because of corrupt policies that have pressured doctors to mark COVID-19 as the cause of death whenever it seems plausible–but respiratory deaths occur among the elderly every year. So there is a lot to this topic and people should start learning while the information is still available.
Third, the author seems to think there is something democratic about the decision-making that went into the Coronovirus lockdown and masking policies. There is no evidence of any democratic input. I would really like to see a truly democratic decision-making process on every policy as long as it guaranteed freedom of discussion and information flow during the debate before each vote (one of those principles I listed above) and a direct vote on every policy (local, state/provincial or federal). I think that a COVID policy or anything like that wouldn’t last a second with a Swiss-like direct democracy and free-flowing debate. Democracy?! Of course there is very little interaction with people during the COVID-19 events because of deliberate lockdown/quarantine policies that continue to interfere with our fundamental freedoms of association and assembly and therefore our ability to communicate with others.
This article shows us what the oligarchy is up to.
By the way, what the author describes is very similar to the empathy pill that the protagonist (played by Tim Robbins) takes in the **dystopian** film Code 46.
I think if we were to take such a pill that it would tend to make us more empathetic towards those who felt oppressed, those who felt afraid for different reasons, those who ended up suffering due to social isolation and even lack of food. Maybe the empathy pill would make us more imaginative and ask questions about why the media wasn’t expressing any concerns or criticism of the economic shutdown and extremist unprecedented policies.
When the author talks about the public good and cooperation, and so on, these are just inversions. The public good is when something is actually “good” for the public. And lies and tyranny and economic shutdown are not good. Letting a bunch of gangsters and con-artists run loose and buying off all the corporations and universities (apparently) makes the situation seem very intimidating. So there seems to be more than the recommended dose of cooperation going around due to fear and intimidation. Many feel genuinely threatened by this massive criminal activity, so we rebel against it because we know it’s not going to a good place. We don’t want to let this situation get any worse.
I would suggest to people involved in it already in different subsidized jobs in corporations, universities and media, you were scammed like most people. Find your conscience. Take a deep breath and leave it all behind–try to find an honest way to make a living as best you can with others who refuse to abandon our rights-based way of life for the “Great Reset” austerity-control system. It was a bad dream, just a foolish mistake. The guys running the scam are pretty slick. No hard feelings. Let’s just all pull out while we can and forgive each other. We can call it COVEXIT.
The author suggests different substances, including oxytocin, substances that supposedly incline people
to be more empathetic and altruistic, more giving and generous. The same goes for psilocybin, the active component of “magic mushrooms.”
The link is actually a study that deals with the same topic, which shows you that this field or research is a huge enterprise:
Effect of Psilocybin on Empathy and Moral Decision-Making | Thomas Pokorny, MSc, Katrin H Preller, PhD, Michael Kometer, PhD, Isabel Dziobek, PhD, Franz X Vollenweider, MD International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, Volume 20, Issue 9, September 2017, Pages 747–757, https://doi.org/10.1093/ijnp/pyx047 | Published: 16 June 2017
My comment on this is that R. Gordon Wasson, Vice-President of Public Relations at J. P. Morgan, “discovered” and promoted magic mushrooms to Western society through Time Life magazine:
Wasson’s 1956 expedition was funded by the CIA’s MK-Ultra subproject 58, as was revealed by documents obtained by John Marks under the Freedom of Information Act.
And the author links to other articles and books that illustrate to me that a lot of money and thought is going into this field:
1. Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement By Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu
Bold and original contribution to a controversial dilemma
At the cutting-edge of modern ethics
Lively and compelling discussion by two experts in the field
Challenges our fundamental assumptions about human nature
Unfit for the Future argues that the future of our species depends on our urgently finding ways to bring about radical enhancement of the moral aspects of our own human nature . . .
Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.
It’s funny how they use the terms “ethics” or “morality.” It’s ironic.
3. More Than Human? The Ethics of Biologically Enhancing Soldiers by Patrick Lin, February 16, 2012 | The Atlantic
As you might expect, there are serious moral and legal risks to consider on this path. Last week in the UK, The Royal Society released its report “Neuroscience, Conflict and Security.” This timely report worried about risks posed by cognitive enhancements to military personnel, as well as whether new nonlethal tactics, such as directed energy weapons, could violate either the Biological or Chemical Weapons Conventions.
I noticed another article at the same website: Doping soldiers so they fight better – is it ethical?
Nobody is going to be OK with all this “satanic” enhancement. Society isn’t going to be better off. Nobody’s health is going to be better off. It isn’t OK to “enhance” soldiers or anybody else. Instead people should be morally evaluating the justice of the wars they are being called to fight in as well as questioning the toxicity of the food and our culture. People should look at this material, look ahead a bit using their mental abilities while they still have them, and decide quickly to reject the kind of “future” offered to us by a very powerful elite.
Thanks to CuttingThroughtheMatrix.com