It depends on what the drug actually does, for example:
Drug A removes irrational fears and worries
Drug B makes you happy by stimulating your pleasure centers (“wirehead drug”)
If you live in a place with a lot of harmless spiders, and you have arachnophobia, you’ll spend a lot of time nervous. You could take drug A, and as a result you’ll feel better.
If you have fears and worries similar to arachnophobia, but about things like speaking up or getting rich or not finishing your damn thesis or whatnot (leading to procrastination, shyness, etc.), and drug A could solve that, then it might be pretty rational to take it, even considering your current pereferences.
I wouldn’t want to take drug B (it would be against my current preferences), but might want to take some forms of drug A.
However in practice it can be hard to tell the difference between drugs A and B—the information from the Discovery article quote could apply in both cases, though I think it tends more towards A than towards B (But a form of drug B might just make you believe that your behaviour changed in a positive way !). So as a precaution I would tend to shy away from drugs like that until I have a clear idea of whether they fit in A or B.
In addition, even drug A may be questionable—imagine the commander of an army that’s killing off civilians, who as a result finds it hard to sleep. He could take drug A to eliminate his irrational feelings that come up in response to the death of other human beings (though a mechanism that may be very close to arachnophobia), and thus sleep more soundly. So I’m even a bit wary about drug A, until I have a better understanding of it and of human morality.
I think what you are referring to in drug A that is so beneficial is the removal of irrational fears. In other words, you have these emotions that you know aren’t inline with your preferences, therefore, it would only be rational to have a drug that only removes those emotions.
But what if drug A completely changes your preference on something. Say, before you were pretty happy working towards your thesis, and working at starbucks, but after taking drug A you suddenly really start caring for people.
You end up wanting to quit everything and join some charitable group. Let’s assume that you may even get more bliss when you start doing charitable work, I still believe you wouldn’t choose to take the drug. You wouldn’t knowingly change your preferences to something else even if it makes you happier. You wouldn’t be optimizing your current preferences by taking the drug.
It depends on what the drug actually does, for example:
Drug A removes irrational fears and worries
Drug B makes you happy by stimulating your pleasure centers (“wirehead drug”)
If you live in a place with a lot of harmless spiders, and you have arachnophobia, you’ll spend a lot of time nervous. You could take drug A, and as a result you’ll feel better.
If you have fears and worries similar to arachnophobia, but about things like speaking up or getting rich or not finishing your damn thesis or whatnot (leading to procrastination, shyness, etc.), and drug A could solve that, then it might be pretty rational to take it, even considering your current pereferences.
I wouldn’t want to take drug B (it would be against my current preferences), but might want to take some forms of drug A.
However in practice it can be hard to tell the difference between drugs A and B—the information from the Discovery article quote could apply in both cases, though I think it tends more towards A than towards B (But a form of drug B might just make you believe that your behaviour changed in a positive way !). So as a precaution I would tend to shy away from drugs like that until I have a clear idea of whether they fit in A or B.
In addition, even drug A may be questionable—imagine the commander of an army that’s killing off civilians, who as a result finds it hard to sleep. He could take drug A to eliminate his irrational feelings that come up in response to the death of other human beings (though a mechanism that may be very close to arachnophobia), and thus sleep more soundly. So I’m even a bit wary about drug A, until I have a better understanding of it and of human morality.
I think what you are referring to in drug A that is so beneficial is the removal of irrational fears. In other words, you have these emotions that you know aren’t inline with your preferences, therefore, it would only be rational to have a drug that only removes those emotions.
But what if drug A completely changes your preference on something. Say, before you were pretty happy working towards your thesis, and working at starbucks, but after taking drug A you suddenly really start caring for people.
You end up wanting to quit everything and join some charitable group. Let’s assume that you may even get more bliss when you start doing charitable work, I still believe you wouldn’t choose to take the drug. You wouldn’t knowingly change your preferences to something else even if it makes you happier. You wouldn’t be optimizing your current preferences by taking the drug.