The movie Equilibrium examines the need for emotion and discusses how the development of drugs to control emotions and their use impacts social values and individual freedom.
In the movie Equilibrium, humanity establishes a unified government of Libria after World War III. About five minutes into the movie, soldiers are shown arresting the person hiding the Mona Lisa and burning the Mona Lisa. Why would a government burn a historic piece of art? After a global war ends and peace returns, scientists and politicians decide that emotions are the cause of wars, riots, and conflicts around the world, and force everyone to take a drug that eliminates emotions. Because art and music, such as the Mona Lisa, trigger emotions in people, the government uses the military to destroy all art and musical instruments.
Do humans need emotions? We may need happiness, but do we really need sadness? Scientific evidence to date suggests that human emotions are the work of chemicals, not something spiritual, as religions often say, or something inaccessible to science. In fact, even drugs that improve our mood or affect our minds have been proven to work by hormones or specific ingredients, and it’s possible that in the near future, chemicals will be developed that can regulate our moods without addiction or side effects. If there was a drug that could eliminate sadness, would it be a good idea to take it? If there was a pill that made us feel nothing but happiness, would it really do us any good to take it?
This is a very complex issue. Human emotions and the workings of the brain do not have specific standards or laws, so we cannot conclude that “this is a real emotion” or “this is the cause of this emotion”. Furthermore, human emotions are so unique to each individual that they cannot be generalized. For example, consider the emotion of empathy. When most people see a person or animal in need, they feel at least a little bit of a desire to help. However, there are some people in our society who are incapable of empathy, called psychopaths. We assume that what the majority feels is right, and we bend our laws and rules to fit the majority, but that’s not what nature has made right. So what criteria should we use to determine right and wrong? If psychopaths become the majority in the future, does that make empathy the wrong emotion?
Human value judgments can come from societal concepts, personal experiences, or idiosyncratic tastes that we are born with. Even values that we think are universal, such as good deeds and conscience, may disappear in the distant future. So which values should we follow? I think of it as “the greatest fulfillment of the greatest number,” a concept derived from the phrase “the greatest happiness of the greatest number,” but I use the word “fulfillment” instead of “happiness” because happiness may not be what some people want. By “fulfillment,” I mean the fulfillment of a desire, not the emotion of achieving a goal, as is often the case. If someone wants to do something that doesn’t benefit anyone and isn’t fun for them, fulfillment for them means doing it. In the here and now, people have their own values and wants. They may want to eat something, they may want to help someone, they may want to hit someone, and so on. The reason we prohibit hitting others is because most people don’t want to be hit. It’s a rule for the happiness of the greatest number. The majority of people in the world today want to be happy and peaceful together, and they value social honor, so these values have become the basis for social rules. In other words, I would say that rather than determining “what is absolutely right and what is absolutely wrong,” we should uphold the values that many people value in society at this time.
So, from this perspective, how do we judge the act of forcing someone to take a drug that makes them happy? Most societies now allow for freedom of expression and the freedom to feel whatever emotions you want, as long as you don’t harm others. This is obviously a rule for the greatest number, so I would suggest the following criteria: first, does the person want to take the drug, knowing all of its effects and side effects? Second, does the change in the person bring about positive changes in society? Is it acceptable to the majority of society, and does it not adversely affect their emotions?
The first criterion is the one to check in terms of freedom of decision-making. This is a universal value in today’s society, so it should be guaranteed. But why does society prohibit suicide or drug use? This can be seen in the second criterion. A person who commits suicide creates an atmosphere of fear of death for those around them and makes suicide an option. This violates the desire of many people who don’t want to die and don’t want their loved ones to die either. It may sound bloodless and tearless, but suicide is harmful to those around you and should be banned. Even if it has no side effects and doesn’t directly harm the people around you, the behavior is restricted because of its social impact.
So which should come first, the individual’s desire or the social climate? The question is not simple. Similar to utilitarianism, I believe that there is a concept of “weighting,” where priorities are not simply determined by the number of people present. These weights are determined by social experience and can change at any time. All problems in modern society stem from weighting. It is true that weighting is difficult, but I believe that if we have a society where we can constantly debate and reflect the opinions of all disempowered individuals, the weights will at least get closer to the ideal value.
Some people might think that the ideas I’ve presented so far are simply utilitarianism. However, my “greatest good for the greatest number” is not the same as utilitarianism. The problem with utilitarianism is that it forces individual sacrifice. The counterargument to this is that in a utilitarian society where individual sacrifice is enforced, it creates a social climate where every individual can be victimized. This means that the desire to avoid being victimized is not guaranteed. If the majority ostracizes the minority, won’t the majority be enriched and protected from harm if they stick together? No. Even within that majority, there is no guarantee that they won’t split again and become a minority themselves. That society is already a society that sacrifices the minority for the majority.
Let’s make a value judgment at this point in our lives. In the movies Gattaca and Equilibrium, I listened to the moods, lessons, and people’s thoughts on the works. From personal experience, many people don’t want unconditional happiness. Most people want happiness that comes from solving their own problems and accomplishments, and they see people who get happiness for nothing as absurd, and they criticize societies where such situations are prevalent as broken. We recognize that our society has problems, but we want to solve them together rather than wish them away. We don’t like the emotion of sadness, but we want the happiness that comes after sadness rather than trying to eliminate it. The same goes for medication to control emotions. I don’t think it’s beautiful or right to have a society where people are happy for no reason, unless they’re mentally ill, and I don’t think it’s right to have a society where people are happy for no reason. Therefore, I think drugs that control emotions should be banned.
