RSS Feed
August 22nd, 2020 
Awake Goy Parker Crutchfield, an ethics professor at Western Michigan University, recently published an article in the Conversation, wherein he advocated for mass drugging in order to alter the behavior of lockdown skeptics for “public good.”
When someone chooses not to follow public health guidelines around the coronavirus, they’re defecting from the public good.”
In order to get these people back on the right track, there needs to be “moral enhancements” in the form of psychoactive pills.
To me, it seems the problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement: like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior. Could a psychoactive pill be the solution to the pandemic?”
Crutchfield thinks dosing people with oxytocin and psilocybin (active component in magic mushrooms) could do the trick, as they “may cause a person to be more empathetic and altruistic, more giving and generous.”
The problem for Crutchfield is that “the defectors who need moral enhancement are also the least likely to sign up for it.”
As some have argued, a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply. These actions require weighing other values.
Twitter users who took exception with Crutchfield’s proposal found a 2019 paper of his entitled “Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert.”
The abstract for the above-mentioned paper reads:
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.
Many of Crutchfield’s articles are actually available on the PubMed.gov site, which is a bit alarming when you consider the implications.
One of Crutchfield’s dystopian papers on the U.S. government site is, “It is better to be ignorant of our moral enhancement: A reply to Zambrano.” The abstract says:
In a recent issue of Bioethics, I argued that compulsory moral bioenhancement should be administered covertly. Alexander Zambrano has criticized this argument on two fronts. First, contrary to my claim, Zambrano claims that the prevention of ultimate harm by covert moral bioenhancement fails to meet conditions for permissible liberty-restricting public health interventions. Second, contrary to my claim, Zambrano claims that covert moral bioenhancement undermines autonomy to a greater degree than does overt moral bioenhancement. In this paper, I rebut both of these arguments, then finish by noting important avenues of research that Zambrano’s arguments motivate.
The U.S. government has already researched the viability of a “gay bomb” to covertly turn enemy populations into raging homosexuals who are more interested in sodomizing each other than fighting off an invasion, so it would not be surprising if the U.S. government is actively considering proposals like those of Crutchfield. Actually, IQ-lowering fluoride has already been in the water supply for years, and who knows what could be administered via chemtrails in the sky.
Posted in 
Tags: 
