> On the one hand, they believe in civil liberties. On the other hand, they also believe in science.
Do they? There are several definitions of "liberal" out there, but none of them appear to match up with what you are saying.
A classical liberal is certainly in favor of civil liberties. Science? Maybe, maybe not.
By the American definition, liberals tend to be in favor of some kind of liberties, but often favor strong government controls and intervention in the economic sphere.
And science? I imagine that acceptance of the scientific consensus on global climate change trends liberal in the U.S. On the other hand, I imagine use of homeopathy and other unproven "alternative" therapies does, too.
On the gripping hand, I really couldn't say what they mean by "liberal" in Canada.
> These two things tend to clash and will do so more frequently in the future as scientists learn more about the brain.
And genetics, yes. This is something be careful about.
Absolutely. I value living with relative freedom in a surprising world more than I value safety or justice.
I feel compelled to point out that few humans would consider it ethical to punish someone for something they haven't done. I'm sure you don't consider it ethical, either, so I don't see what the point of this line of reasoning is.
In addition, this has nothing to do with the article, which makes no claim to prophecies or predictions.
I still don't understand what you are trying to say. We already have laws dealing with mental illness. If a person is determined to be an imminent danger to themselves or others, we act proactively to treat them. I don't think that is particularly controversial, provided the assessment is competent, objective, and has a high standard.
It's clear that few people fall into this category, since most people navigate life fine without being committed. "Having serial killer genes" does not and will never qualify.
There is a critical distinction to be made between mental defects that compromise one's ability to think rationally vs defects that simply overpower one's motivation to act in a rational way.
If you can think straight and accurately perceive your environment, you are responsible for your actions. As a rational being, your plight is to see beyond all those powerful monkey emotions and do what you know is right. Welcome to humanity.
If you really are out of your mind and your brain is just playing tricks on you, you're off the hook morally, though if it can't be fixed then ultimately you can't play in the human sandbox, sorry.
Since none of us are even close to perfect rational-observation machines, we have to cut ourselves some slack. How much slack is an incredibly difficult decision, but that's the decision at the core of our practical ethics.
Without making some distinction between motives and choices, our ethics are pretty meaningless.
I didn't realize either of those things were exclusive to any one part of the political spectrum. Assuming you're talking about US politics, I'm fairly certain it'd be safe to say a belief in civil liberties is an American value across the political spectrum ("we hold these truths to be self evident"... etc).
I really hope you learn that saying things like this points out to people that you are willing to stereotype a huge number of people of whom you are completely ignorant. Also, there wasn't really an issue here. It was a human interest/science story about a scientist learning he is similar to the people that he has studied. Interesting story without an issue being focused on.
On the one hand, they believe in civil liberties. On the other hand, they also believe in science.
These two things tend to clash and will do so more frequently in the future as scientists learn more about the brain.