Don't Worry Be Happy [Worm AU One-Shot]

[Sebastian13/15]

Given that our brains are as close to our selves as we can get (esp. in worm where there are no souls) if this changing of the brain is amoral, then I fail to see how giving your girlfriend chocolates for valentines day would be okay, as chocolates also have a direct effect on our brain. They could effectively be making us create positive associations with the giver.

... and now I probably sound completely insane.

 

[Ack]

Given that our brains are as close to our selves as we can get (esp. in worm where there are no souls) if this changing of the brain is amoral, then I fail to see how giving your girlfriend chocolates for valentines day would be okay, as chocolates also have a direct effect on our brain. They could effectively be making us create positive associations with the giver.

... and now I probably sound completely insane.

Click to shrink...

Welcome to the general state of being on Questionable Questing. We hope you'll enjoy your stay here. Sanity comes through occasionally; we throw rocks at it until it goes away again.

 

[pepperjack]

Given that our brains are as close to our selves as we can get (esp. in worm where there are no souls) if this changing of the brain is amoral, then I fail to see how giving your girlfriend chocolates for valentines day would be okay, as chocolates also have a direct effect on our brain. They could effectively be making us create positive associations with the giver.

... and now I probably sound completely insane.

Click to shrink...

The difference is the illusion of agency. When you give me chocolates, I feel like it's up to me that I like you better afterward; I've re-evaluated you on my own, and in light of this new evidence (you're a person who gave me chocolates), I've decided (possibly subconsciously) that I like you better. When you alter my brain directly with your super-powers, it's obvious that you're responsible for my new feelings. It's the impression that in the latter case, I didn't have a choice in the matter, while in the former case I did (I imagine that I could have decided not to like you better as a result of the gift), that creates the difference in perception.

Even so, there are situations where giving people things is not considered okay, precisely because that could influence people's thoughts and opinions. Now that I think about it, it could come down societal expectations about in which contexts it is acceptable to take persuasive actions at least as much as it's about how one goes about being persuasive.

 

[Ack]

The difference is the illusion of agency. When you give me chocolates, I feel like it's up to me that I like you better afterward; I've re-evaluated you on my own, and in light of this new evidence (you're a person who gave me chocolates), I've decided (possibly subconsciously) that I like you better. When you alter my brain directly with your super-powers, it's obvious that you're responsible for my new feelings. It's the impression that in the latter case, I didn't have a choice in the matter, while in the former case I did (I imagine that I could have decided not to like you better as a result of the gift), that creates the difference in perception.

Even so, there are situations where giving people things is not considered okay, precisely because that could influence people's thoughts and opinions. Now that I think about it, it could come down societal expectations about in which contexts it is acceptable to take persuasive actions at least as much as it's about how one goes about being persuasive.

Click to shrink...

So, questions.
If Amy sat down for an hour and argued Vicky into being okay with her having (say) given Carol and Mark mental makeovers, is that better or worse than her just going you're fine with this ?

And if Carol, despite all the logic and reasoning in the world, refused to accept Amy as her daughter, is that better or worse than Amy deciding to no-sell her stubbornness, remove her delusions, and make her into a happier person?

If Contessa could sit down with Carol and, with exactly the right words via PtV, make her accept her as her daughter (and she could no doubt do just that) is it any different from Amy using her powers to do the same?

 

[pepperjack]

So, questions.

Click to shrink...

All good questions.

I was more interested in explaining to Sebastian why (I believe) the average man-on-the-street perceives a distinction than in actually taking and/or defending a moral position, though.

Edit: Story's great, by the way.

 

[Sebastian13/15]

I was already aware that most people perceive a difference between the direct alteration (Amy's power) and indirect alteration (giving someone chocolate). I just wanted to make my own, probably common, point as to why, at least in the worm-verse where we are our brains and free-will seems unlikely, Amy using her powers to make someone lover her wouldn't be that bad.

Also, how do you quote people?

 

[doomlord9]

Also, how do you quote people?

Click to shrink...

Either click on the 'Reply' link in the lower right of the post to quote the entire post or highlight the section of the post you want to reply to, like I did with yours, and a small menu box should pop up under the selection with '+ quote' and 'reply'. +quote is you use a multiquote function, something you probably don't care about right now while reply is what you want to use to quote only the selected text.

 

[Navrin]

I'm fairly sure that the Wormverse is NOT confirmed materialistic, merely that there's absolutely no evidence that it isn't. Also, it's easily possible that there are infinitely more realities than the ones the Entities can access. Given a full implementation of the many worlds hypothesis, that would easily allow for free will to exist... if there's some non-material component to humans, at least.

Personally, I think that Amy's actions were definitely of an evil nature and requiring extreme arrogance to think was an acceptable usage of her power... but in each case the actions could easily be viewed as fitting vengeance for how they had harmed her already. Mark and Carol for attacking Amelia and her father and then dropping the ball in making up for the support system they took from her and Victoria for mind-raping her with her aura.

However, given that Victoria's was absolutely unintentional and Amy probably had no idea that the aura was responsible in any way, it says VERY worrying things about what Amy will do in the future. Even with the best of intentions she's almost certainly going to harm a lot of people very badly. And, of course, she almost certainly does not have the best of intentions; she's a fairly self-centered person like most humans are.

In short... the Dallon family is extremely messed up and, in this continuity, Amy is harming people with little provocation, too.


If there's no free will in the first place, though, then moral statements are completely inapplicable as morality only applies to people. There's no more point in being disgusted by, say, Thomas Calvert than there is in a hurricane.

 

[pepperjack]

If there's no free will in the first place, though, then moral statements are completely inapplicable as morality only applies to people. There's no more point in being disgusted by, say, Thomas Calvert than there is in a hurricane.

Click to shrink...

I reject this conclusion, but since this isn't really the place for that discussion, I'll just assert my disagreement and leave it at that.

 

[Sebastian13/15]

I'm fairly sure that the Wormverse is NOT confirmed materialistic, merely that there's absolutely no evidence that it isn't. Also, it's easily possible that there are infinitely more realities than the ones the Entities can access. Given a full implementation of the many worlds hypothesis, that would easily allow for free will to exist... if there's some non-material component to humans, at least.

Personally, I think that Amy's actions were definitely of an evil nature and requiring extreme arrogance to think was an acceptable usage of her power... but in each case the actions could easily be viewed as fitting vengeance for how they had harmed her already. Mark and Carol for attacking Amelia and her father and then dropping the ball in making up for the support system they took from her and Victoria for mind-raping her with her aura.

However, given that Victoria's was absolutely unintentional and Amy probably had no idea that the aura was responsible in any way, it says VERY worrying things about what Amy will do in the future. Even with the best of intentions she's almost certainly going to harm a lot of people very badly. And, of course, she almost certainly does not have the best of intentions; she's a fairly self-centered person like most humans are.

In short... the Dallon family is extremely messed up and, in this continuity, Amy is harming people with little provocation, too.


If there's no free will in the first place, though, then moral statements are completely inapplicable as morality only applies to people. There's no more point in being disgusted by, say, Thomas Calvert than there is in a hurricane.

Click to shrink...

1.) Since we know that the Simurgh is a perfect precog, how can people have free will?
2.) I am just going to accept your disagreement to avoid a long and pointless argument.
3.) I don't believe that justice is a valid moral reason to hurt/kill people.
4.) Moral statements are still applicable as people still have the feature of being sadistic, sociopathic, etc, so, unless you believe that morality is subjective, it should now be easier to apply moral statements to people.-- they will always act that way.
I know point 4 wasn't all that good but it is the best I can do right now.

 

[Ack]

In short... the Dallon family is extremely messed up and, in this continuity, Amy is harming people with little provocation, too.

Click to shrink...

Is she harming them? They are demonstrably happier and better off than in canon. They are not suffering, nor is she deriving sadistic glee from manipulating them.

Let's posit a powers-vs-normality argument. Say, there is a five pound brick on the ground. One person grabs it, climbs a ladder, and places it on top of a wall. The brick is on the wall.
Another person sees the brick there, grabs it, and flies up to the top of the wall and puts it there. Brick, wall.
A third person teleports the brick up there. Brick is still on wall.
An independent observer, arriving after all this has happened, has no way of knowing how those bricks got there. For all he knows, they were all carried up, or all teleported. The end result is identical.

Now, suppose Mrs Yamada visits the Dallon household, having been apprised of the facts. Suppose she talks to Carol, and over days or weeks or months, gradually convinces her that Amy isn't a monster, and that she really does deserve to be treated as her daughter. And Carol has an epiphany, and really does come around, and treats Amy as she should have from the beginning.
An independent observer would not be able to tell the difference between that and Amy going It's silly to hate me.

Only, of course, with Amy, it's a lot easier, and Carol's a lot less likely to reject the argument through sheer delusional stubbornness.

Is clinging to a belief that harms others by its very nature more or less evil than having someone forcibly alter that belief into one that does no harm?

 

[volantredx]

Oh man, when TT sees her, she's going to *NOPE* the fuck out of the city.

Click to shrink...

Grue: What messed you up back there?

TT: It was that Dallon girl.

Grue: Go on.

TT: She has mind control powers.

Grue: Like?

TT: She warped her parents into being like something out a Norman Rockwell painting. And what she did to Glory Girl. *Shudders*

Regent: What did she do to ole Glory Hole?

TT: Remember that scandal a few months back? About them getting married? That's all her. She messed with her hot sister until she got so wrapped up in her she can't live with out her.

Regent:... Wow suddenly I feel really homesick.

 

[Beyogi]

Well, according to utilitarist morals Amy did some undeniable good here. If you're more an adherent to Kant this looks a lot darker.

 

[klattmose]

Let's posit a powers-vs-normality argument. Say, there is a five pound brick on the ground. One person grabs it, climbs a ladder, and places it on top of a wall. The brick is on the wall.
Another person sees the brick there, grabs it, and flies up to the top of the wall and puts it there. Brick, wall.
A third person teleports the brick up there. Brick is still on wall.
An independent observer, arriving after all this has happened, has no way of knowing how those bricks got there. For all he knows, they were all carried up, or all teleported. The end result is identical.

Click to shrink...

Let's posit a different argument.

Scenario 1: You go to an eye doctor and get LASIK surgery. You go under the knife, heal, pay your bill, and now you can see better.

Scenario 2: Someone physically forces you to get LASIK surgery. Whether by sedatives or restraints, you are forced into the chair to get your eyes fixed. After recovery, you can see better, and you didn't even have to pay.

An independent observer will see only one difference between the two scenarios: that in S2 you end up with more money. Clearly that must be the better scenario, right?

 

[Ack]

Let's posit a different argument.

Scenario 1: You go to an eye doctor and get LASIK surgery. You go under the knife, heal, pay your bill, and now you can see better.

Scenario 2: Someone physically forces you to get LASIK surgery. Whether by sedatives or restraints, you are forced into the chair to get your eyes fixed. After recovery, you can see better, and you didn't even have to pay.

An independent observer will see only one difference between the two scenarios: that in S2 you end up with more money. Clearly that must be the better scenario, right?

Click to shrink...

When I was in high school, I discovered that I had a groin hernia. (Never get a groin hernia).
I informed the school, who unformed my parents, and I found myself booked in for surgery.
The whole time, I was never really consulted. It was just decided for me. I went through the surgery.
I wasn't thrilled while it was going on, but after it was done (and I had recovered) I was grateful for the fact that it had been done. I still am.

So yeah, sometimes, making your own choices through stubbornness or ignorance can be bad for you.

 

[volantredx]

So yeah, sometimes, making your own choices through stubbornness or ignorance can be bad for you.

Click to shrink...

Except you were given surgery to prevent harm to yourself. Amy is fundamentally altering who they are. I mean Vicky was straight and now she is gay and in love with her sister. Or let's put it this way, getting surgery didn't alter who you were. Would you be happy if your family had you lobotomized to make you happier?

 

[Beyogi]

Except you were given surgery to prevent harm to yourself. Amy is fundamentally altering who they are. I mean Vicky was straight and now she is gay and in love with her sister. Or let's put it this way, getting surgery didn't alter who you were. Would you be happy if your family had you lobotomized to make you happier?

Click to shrink...

Yes, he would. That's the creepy thing about this. Though Amy didn't even go to that point.

I mean I get the point of most people here. I wouldn't want that kind of thing happen to me, but let's be honest, considering how the situation turned out in canon worm this is definitely better. I certainly wouldn't want to end crippled and transformed in a madhouse. I'd rather get my sexual orientation changed. So this is a classical situation between creepy/bad on one side and horribly bad on the other. So what are you going to chose? Let things play out like in canon or give Amy the inspiration to fix things?

 

[volantredx]

certainly wouldn't want to end crippled and transformed in a madhouse. I'd rather get my sexual orientation changed

Click to shrink...

But it goes far beyond a change in sexual orientation. Amy is out right raping Vicky here. She is exactly like Heartbreaker. She is forcing someone to feel things for her that they didn't before. Yes it is not a horrible a fate as canon but that's a false dichotomy. The situation was nothing like it was in canon. Here Amy calmly and coldly altered people around her. Are they happier? Yes, but they're no longer the same people anymore. She's painted smiles on their souls. They're not happy because they worked through their issues or faced the hardships in their lives. They're happy because they can't not be happy.

 

[Slayer Anderson]

Except you were given surgery to prevent harm to yourself. Amy is fundamentally altering who they are. I mean Vicky was straight and now she is gay and in love with her sister. Or let's put it this way, getting surgery didn't alter who you were. Would you be happy if your family had you lobotomized to make you happier?

Click to shrink...

Carol is emotionally cutting herself every time she tries to interact with any other human being save Victoria. She feeds on the validation that she perceives whenever anyone does anything that she can someway construe into 'proof' that they were eventually going to betray her in some way.

If she was doing this (cutting herself) physically, she'd be in a psych care hospital or should be sent to one.

Mark has a case of depression bad enough that he won't get out of bed and make himself food some days. Honestly, he should be seeing long-term psychiatric care at this point, but no one will say that because of the public scandal that would ensue from having a founding member of New Wave go through with that.

Victoria's on-again-off-again relationship with Dean is emotionally scarring and the rollarcoaster of emotions she goes through every 'few weeks' as per canon cannot be healthy. With Vicky, Amy has given her a long-term stable relationship that is far more psychologically, emotionally, and physically healthy than what she would have had with Dean.

The Dallons all need extensive therapy over the course of months or years...or this. Honestly, I think the drama of confronting one's personal demons and coming to terms with them is overrated. Amy just *fixes* the problem in this fic.

Now they can all go on to lead happy, healthy, and productive lives instead of stewing in their own issues.

 

[DieKatzchen]

When I take my meds I'm a different person than when I don't. But I'm happier taking them even though I'm not the same person.

 

[volantredx]

The Dallons all need extensive therapy over the course of months or years...or this. Honestly, I think the drama of confronting one's personal demons and coming to terms with them is overrated. Amy just *fixes* the problem in this fic.

Now they can all go on to lead happy, healthy, and productive lives instead of stewing in their own issues.

Click to shrink...

No they are forced to be happy. They aren't happy because they grew as people. They were mindslaved. That's not happiness. They're not free independent people who can live their lives. They're Amy's puppets.

 

[DeAnno]

I think its worth mentioning that without Victoria's power, Amy would almost certainly not be in love with her and possibly not even be gay. As for the parents, Mark was clinically depressed and Carol was a toxic bitch that shouldn't have even been allowed to raise children.

 

[Sebastian13/15]

Would you be happy if your family had you lobotomized to make you happier?

Click to shrink...

No, I would not, but I don't think that it proves your point.
I believe that being lobotomized would reduce the value of my happiness greatly, after all, a human is surely more important than a mouse. And yet how could our species alone determining our worth be any more valid than racism. So our intelligence, or something similar must be the deciding factor.
Basically, I don't think that comparing Amy making someone love her to lobotomizing is fair.

 

[Beyogi]

But it goes far beyond a change in sexual orientation. Amy is out right raping Vicky here. She is exactly like Heartbreaker. She is forcing someone to feel things for her that they didn't before. Yes it is not a horrible a fate as canon but that's a false dichotomy. The situation was nothing like it was in canon. Here Amy calmly and coldly altered people around her. Are they happier? Yes, but they're no longer the same people anymore. She's painted smiles on their souls. They're not happy because they worked through their issues or faced the hardships in their lives. They're happy because they can't not be happy.

Click to shrink...

I'm not convinced that this is the case. Amy just fixed Marcs depression. She also fixed Carol's chronic hatred for herself and stopped them about being angry at her for it. She could also have allowed herself to suffer the consequences of Vicky's aura. Instead she caused the same effect Vicky's aura had on her on Vicky.

In Marc's case she simply cured him. In Carol's case she saved herself from abuse and in Vicky's case she only rendered on Vicky what was done on her and actually figured out a way to fix the situation without horribly hurting one of them.

She hasn't pulled some sort of identity death thing, overwriting their brains to make them nice shiny meat puppets. She just stopped an abusive situation towards herself.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't like this solution either. Fucking with people's minds should be the last option, but what other options did she have? "Working through their issues"? That only works if people want to work through their issues. Which wasn't the case here. Marc couldn't even be bothered to take his meds, Carol took comfort in hating Amy and Vicky was happily in denial. Seriously, what other options did Amy have? Leave her family? Or fix their problems? Leaving the family would make Vicky sad and maybe Marc and she wouldn't know what to do. Fixing their issues made everyone happier. The choice is obvious.

Well, unless you see people as having their own purpose/being their own subject. In that case the whole thing is horribly evil.

Basically this is Utilitarism vs Categorial Imperative.

 

[volantredx]

I'm not convinced that this is the case. Amy just fixed Marcs depression. She also fixed Carol's chronic hatred for herself and stopped them about being angry at her for it. She could also have allowed herself to suffer the consequences of Vicky's aura. Instead she caused the same effect Vicky's aura had on her on Vicky.

In Marc's case she simply cured him. In Carol's case she saved herself from abuse and in Vicky's case she only rendered on Vicky what was done on her and actually figured out a way to fix the situation without horribly hurting one of them.

She hasn't pulled some sort of identity death thing, overwriting their brains to make them nice shiny meat puppets. She just stopped an abusive situation towards herself.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't like this solution either. Fucking with people's minds should be the last option, but what other options did she have? "Working through their issues"? That only works if people want to work through their issues. Which wasn't the case here. Marc couldn't even be bothered to take his meds, Carol took comfort in hating Amy and Vicky was happily in denial. Seriously, what other options did Amy have? Leave her family? Or fix their problems? Leaving the family would make Vicky sad and maybe Marc and she wouldn't know what to do. Fixing their issues made everyone happier. The choice is obvious.

Well, unless you see people as having their own purpose/being their own subject. In that case the whole thing is horribly evil.

Basically this is Utilitarism vs Categorial Imperative.

Click to shrink...

I think my issue is the forced nature of this. It's exactly what Heartbreaker does. Hell her relationship with Vicky is literally the same thing. She is forcing people to feel things against their will because it makes them "better". Amy took a look around and said to herself, "the issue here is free will, if I get rid of that everything will work out." Amy is taking away a part of Carol's identity, a shitty part, but still her identity. Fixing Mark I'll give you, good on her. But what she did to Vicky is horrible. She is outright raping her. And here's the thing. It's not the same as the aura. That's involuntary. Vicky didn't know that would happen to Amy. If she had she would have taken steps to stop it. Amy chose that her happiness is more important than Vicky's right to chose. She altered a key part of Vicky's identity then brainwashed her into being her love slave.

I'd also add that there is more to life than being happy. Freedom for one is far more important.

 

[Sebastian13/15]

But it goes far beyond a change in sexual orientation. Amy is out right raping Vicky here. She is exactly like Heartbreaker. She is forcing someone to feel things for her that they didn't before. Yes it is not a horrible a fate as canon but that's a false dichotomy. The situation was nothing like it was in canon. Here Amy calmly and coldly altered people around her. Are they happier? Yes, but they're no longer the same people anymore. She's painted smiles on their souls. They're not happy because they worked through their issues or faced the hardships in their lives. They're happy because they can't not be happy.

Click to shrink...

The problem with your argument, as I see it, is that you seem to assume that Amy changing a persons mind is something unique. In the worm-verse I feel comfortable stating that there is no free will, given that the Simurgh and PtV both perfectly predict human actions. So, it would seem to fallow that we are our brains. So, given that our brains are constantly affected by things outside of our control, how is that any different. Shouldn't they, by your logic, put themselves into cryogenic sleep to prevent themselves from being changed without consent, or even kill themselves, if you don't believe that death is bad. Besides, how does 'working though their issues or facing the hardships in their lives' make the changes any better.

EDIT: Also, when you say that freedom is important. my answer for the worm-verse is what freedom? there is no free will, as a pre-cog of sufficient power could plot out all of time until the heat death of the universe.

 

[volantredx]

The problem with your argument, as I see it, is that you seem to assume that Amy changing a persons mind is something unique. In the worm-verse I feel comfortable stating that there is no free will, given that the Simurgh and PtV both perfectly predict human actions. So, it would seem to fallow that we are our brains. So, given that our brains are constantly affected by things outside of our control, how is that any different.

Click to shrink...

Because this is someone from the outside acting on them to make them do things they normally wouldn't do. By this logic Heartbreak is a totally chill dude who has done nothing wrong.

Besides, how does 'working though their issues or facing the hardships in their lives' make the changes any better.

Click to shrink...

Because it's their choice. Carol didn't change because she saw what she was doing and took steps to fix her own demons. She was forced to feel things she never felt naturally. Like I said earlier this is like someone lobotomizing someone to make them "better". The mistake here is thinking that happiness by itself is a positive end. It's not. Happiness as a result of a productive life or having things you view as positive happen is a good end for people. But happiness that is forced on someone isn't real happiness. Like I said earlier, Amy didn't make anyone have a better life. She painted smiles on their souls. She forced them to be the people she wanted them to be. And again you haven't explained how her raping Vicky is a good thing.

 

[Navrin]

Ziz doesn't actually have perfect precog. Her precog is very, very good, but even without the holes it's still not perfect.

Anyway, you can have perfect precog as well as let free will exist. All you need is for using precognition to "choose" which future you'll end up in. Anyone who would go to a different future would get the precog for that one, instead. (If you don't follow it, though, who knows)

I don't like vengeance either; I think it's sad and horrible. However, it is also at least mildly acceptable to me and it indicates that they won't harm people without specific cause. Unfortunately, Amy does not know that Victoria's aura was responsible and neither does Victoria. As such, Amy's choice clearly indicates that she isn't limiting herself to vengeance.


Anyway, Ack, yes I do believe that how something is accomplished matters a lot. Especially when those different methods of accomplishing something give people other ways to react. In your case, for example, you could have argued with them. You could have called for help and/or run away. You could have researched the risks of the surgery and found another option where the risk/reward assessment was different. I'm not thrilled with how your parents did that, but it's still not even close to as big a violation as it could have been.

And I agree with volantredx: happiness is NOT the most important thing at all, and anybody imposing it on others is doing something horrible.

 

[Adyen]

As interesting as the "Free Will" vs "Happiness" debate is (and it's been debated to death), is it really relevant to the point of this thread?

 

[volantredx]

As interesting as the "Free Will" vs "Happiness" debate is (and it's been debated to death), is it really relevant to the point of this thread?

Click to shrink...

Yes because that's what the story is about. Let's focus on less hypotheticals and more on the subjects in the story. Changing Carol so she'll be a mother to her. That's fucked up but I will concede that is at least for a good reason and can't really be called harming Carol. Curing Mark, this is good as I said. Depression isn't really something that can be gotten over thorugh effort so this is about as close to healing as happens in this story. Out right raping Vicky. This is the point where Amy goes from an ambiguous person to a bad person. Vicky isn't "better off" being raped by Amy. For one we have no reason in canon to think her and Dean have anything but a positive relationship. But Amy is no better than Heartbreaker here. She is forcing Vicky against her will to be her love slave. This is rape. That can't be argued. And at no point can I accept rape as some net good for people.