TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Since oxytocin can influence trust, is it possible to use it for manipulation? Can "the moral molecule" be used for immoral purposes?

For example, is there any way in which politicians could influence the trust of their audiences, or companies influence the trust of their clients, or religious institutions influence the trust of their followers with the help of oxytocin?
Can "the moral molecule" be used for immoral purposes?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Nov 5 2011: It's already being used for immoral purposes. It's being sold/endorsed by the speaker himself on merchant websites. Its a product which says trust me, pay me to manipulate your trust, then you'll surely trust me and keep paying me.

    They can even give the first shipment free by that logic.

    Also I'm putting forward the notion that naturally induced Oxytocin is the primary catalyst behind reprogramming of minds by cults and cult-like organisations already - http://www.ted.com/conversations/6917/are_cults_abusing_oxytocin_is.html

    Now that people are allowed to dispense Oxytocin without prescription to the unsuspecting general public, it's not the potential to, but an escalation of the manipulation at an even larger scale.
    • Nov 9 2011: Simply selling it doesn't necessarily mean it's being used for immoral purposes, but it does open up the possibility. From my reading it seems to be used in marriage counseling to get people to talk to each other honestly (as is ecstasy). It's used to help with depression, social anxiety and impotence.

      Drugs aren't always the best cure for a person's issues - however, when you're in the shoes of the suffering and you've been working hard at it a long time, who is an outside to say it's the wrong choice?
      • Nov 10 2011: That makes sense for the prescription use of the product.

        Is the non-presription sale of the product as a "become more trusting" or "become more generous" unethical? If the person consumes it and becomes more trusting, with an impaired sense of judgment then will he be more susceptible to the sales pitch of the product saying that it is the greatest thing on earth?

        Is that not then the definition of a addictive drug? Is this not then the sale of an addictive drug?

        How about the sale of it as "get people to trust you drug" or "get people to love you drug"?

        Is not the person who buys the product for the sole purpose of manipulating the judgment of other people committing an highly unethical act?

        What if it's put in the church snacks before sermon or donation?

        Shouldn't these findings be the basis to ban the non-prescription product rather than sell it?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.