AIBU to think we should not own our own thoughts if they are harmful ones?

[ControvertialYeti]

Listened to a radio 4 show and it got all of my 6 braincells in overdrive

Bear with me this is quite a long one, requires some investing and is a bit philosophical, but I am exceptionally curious to see what others think to this...

AIBU to consider whether you have ownership over your own thoughts?

YABU - you have ownership of your own thoughts - even if they are what society may deem ‘bad’

YANBU - you do not have ownership of your own thoughts and if they could (conceivable in any way) cause distress or harm to others, society should identify/censor/correct them

Are the thoughts you have are your own? There is an entity known as ‘freedom of thought’. It is the right every individual has to think anything they want (even if those things are unpleasant/fascist/homophobic etc).
Because of ‘freedom of thought’, nobody should really be able to take those thoughts away. Mostly, this is because we don’t have the technology available to read people’s minds (yet), but even if a technology existed that could read people’s minds should you be entitled to think whatever you want? Especially if those thoughtS could lead to harm of someone else? Or even yourself? Or should society (or the government) recondition you? Sounds a bit like a dystopian ‘1984’-esq reality.
Broadcasting those thoughts, eg via social media or printing them in newspaper is possible due to ‘freedom of expression’, but expression is censored (in many countries) by the government as it’s easy to see how expressing yourself publicly in a hateful way could influence others to do hateful things.
But I’m specifically not referring to expression, merely the thought itself. Suppose you could do something like a functional MRI scan and find out that someone had thoughts which were paedophilic / racist /homophobic and you could identify and get them help, would that be moral?

My partner and I were debating this and were of different opinions. As I say, this technology doesn’t exist to any validated degree of accuracy but it might exist in the not too distant future and I was curious as to others opinions

YABU - you have ownership of your own thoughts - even if they are what your society may deem ‘bad’
YANBU - you do not have ownership of your own thoughts and if they could (conceivable in any way) cause distress or harm to others, society should identify/censor/correct them

Yabu half the time you cant even control what you are thinking about.
Your right it does sound very 1984 and not something we should be looking into at all.
Everyones thoughts should say private. The type of person they are shows by how they act on those thoughts.

Who gets to decide which thoughts should be censored and corrected?

I'm sure at some point in time most of us have had dark thoughts - after a break up, in response to someone else's bullying behaviour, if someone has caused harm. Should these thoughts be censored?

Thoughts should stay private, however if those thoughts turn into actions or are used to cause distress then that's different.

If I've understood this right- thoughts are thoughts. You can't control them. I've been struggling the last few days with intrusive thoughts about a deceased relative. I am actively trying not to have these thoughts but they are there.

So I think my vote is YABU. If thoughts remain thoughts, the only person they can ever harm is the thinker. If they become actions, that's different, but policing the thoughts themselves (not the expression of them or acting on them) isn't reasonable, and I would be very against the development of any technology which attempted to do so.

But if there was a 'machine' whose criteria would it run off? Who decides what is acceptable or not? And even legally if you go by that humans still create and interpret it differently. Murder, for example, sure most of the population is against that but it can be said the death penalty is murder but there is a law (in places) that is legal.

So who decided?

No entities or governments etc should have the power enter the private parts of a human (like the brain) or to censor anything the human does in private (that's legal obviously) that doesn't involve another living thing so thoughts are about things but only when it becomes an action would it then physically involve another person.

I personally think we ought to auto "correct" ourselves though so if I was sat and I had for example racists thoughts I should pull myself up on them and try to engage myself to not think that way in future. Or actively recognise that certain thoughts like wishing revenge on someone are just that thoughts with no bearing on reality.

Intrusive thoughts as a poster has mentioned is a separate issue to me as they are not easily controllable as the nature of them are intrusive but they are a good example of why this could be a catastrophic plan if it was something that could be done!

YABU because in reality, it is neither: you don't own your thoughts, and neither does the state.

Just like you don't own your dreams, they just happen.
And you can accept them, agree with them, or reject them, feel horrified by them... The bottom line is you are not your thoughts. They're just passing clouds in the landscape of your mind. They don't define you.

Understanding this is at the core of "mindfulness". It's particularly useful for people suffering from certain mental health problems (e.g. intrusive thoughts), but everyone would benefit from understanding the distinction between their thoughts (and feelings) and their self.

I completely agree with what other pp have said.
Many of the thoughts we have are us trying to make sense of our experiences, and align them with our previous experiences, values, social constraints, understanding of the work etc.
It is the intention and the action of our behaviour which needs regulating (hopefully successfully by ourselves, if not with support).

YABU and if this technology existed it would be terrifying.

Private thoughts are just that, private. Even under an oppressive regime where people can't say what they want, they have the freedom to think what they like inside their own minds. The idea of not having that is chilling. Nobody can possibly be harmed by what someone else is thinking (or even saying, although speech can cause offense, which is different).

The idea that some people have fascist, racist, sexist thoughts is a much lesser evil than the idea of government thought reconditioning. And those who may be thinking 'well, I don't have those horrible prejudiced thoughts, why would I care?' - maybe not, but I'm sure you have had thoughts that someone, somewhere might be distressed by.

Tbh o think that this is the natural culmination of the push towards black and white thinking, the diversity boxes, (siloing people to the point of irony), the cancel culture, censorship of academics, the targetedrunning down of the arts replacing them with identikit feelies and piped music. Simple yes /no you’re either with us or against us dogma.

What were left with is a static society,no growth of humanity. Behaviour/feelings and thoughts limited to a binary code. What punishment for failure to comply?

In fact I would argue we don’t need a machine to implement all this. Man has become the machine that already serves this purpose. A brave new fucking world.

Shit Ihatefish You are right but seeing it written down is terrifying

Who gets to decide which thoughts should be censored and corrected?

This. Already powerful, wealthy and privileged voices dominate the narrative in media & culture. Nobody has the right to make claims about what is the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way to think. Especially as these ideas change over historical and geographical context.

If thoughts were controlled in any way then change cannot happen. It is thought that precedes conversation. And while there is room for conversation there is no room for violence.

"Your bum looks big in that!"
"OMG, that's an ugly baby!"
"My boss can shove that mobile phone where the sun don't shine"
"You're 38!, I thought you were about 50"
"I'd love to steal that Ferrari - and crash it"
"Piers Moron needs throwing off a tall building"
"That idiot needs shooting"

All self-censored and not expressed and a million miles from being acted on, but clearly a candidate for immediate brain reprogramming!

The problem is that we can't control our thoughts, only our actions. The brain is just another organ in our body and sometimes does it's own thing. Someone may have a fleeting thought about something bad, but it doesn't follow that they either believe it or will act on it.