I'd be worried about the state endorsing or experimenting with this, even as a voluntary measure. Coming withing even an AU of normalizing pharmacologically 'correcting' asocial behavior could put us on a very dark path.
For better or worse, we're very much already on this path. We chemically 'corrected' 'asocial' behavior by chemically castrating homosexuals, the most high profile case being Alan Turing in the 1950's. He is believed to have later committed suicide.
Society's views on homosexuality have progressed since then, but there is a bar for being gainfully employed and housed in the US. Unmediated, some mentally ill people are not able to meet that bar. Too asocial to hold down a job and thus too poor to afford housing. Medicated, they are. If the alternative to being medicated and a productive member of society is to be homeless or in prison, aren't we already there?
For those that are able to finding the right medication, it's life-changing. We should be very very cautious about what the state can force people to do, but we should all strive for a society that's better equipped to handle and treat mental illness and the problems that stem from that.
True, but on the other hand, what if it is an option and we're depriving some people of a normal, happy life by not researching and making available a simple medication to regulate e.g. their thresholds for violence, aggression, empathy, self-discipline, motivation or wakefulness?
We have similar ethical concerns with regard to e.g. cochlear implants. We don't force people to have them implanted, but it would seem cruel to not make them available because the availability may, at some point in the future, make them semi-mandatory.
