Gandhi, murder pills, and mental illness

Whether Charlie can be convinced to take such a pill depends on whether he has other values besides the one specified (not being deluded) which can realistically compete with that one. For instance, perhaps he cares about his family, who are harmed by his depression.

Greg Egan's short story "Axiomatic" is close to the first scenario. Complete synopsis in rot13:

N zna, n pbzzvggrq cnpvsvfg, unf n tveysevraq jub vf fubg nf n olfgnaqre va n onax eboorel. Gur eboore vf pnhtug naq pbaivpgrq ohg trgf n fubeg fragrapr. Gur zna jnagf gb xvyy uvz, lrg vf nyfb bccbfrq gb xvyyvat uvz. Fb va beqre gb or noyr gb xvyy uvz ur ohlf na vyyvpvg qeht gb ercebtenz uvf trareny ivrjcbvag gb bar bs "Crbcyr ner whfg zrng. Gurl qba'g znggre." Gura ur tbrf gb pbasebag gur eboore, abj bhg bs wnvy, ohg orsber fubbgvat uvz, ur nfxf jul ur xvyyrq uvf tveysevraq, naq trgf gur bss-unaq nafjre, "url, fur jnf whfg va gur jnl, zna". Gur eboore unq gur fnzr nggvghqr gung ur unf whfg chepunfrq. Ur wblbhfyl rzcgvrf uvf tha ng uvz, abg va eriratr sbe uvf tveysevraq, ohg orpnhfr [crbcyr ner zrng, gurl qba'g znggre].

Gur qeht bayl unf n grzcbenel rssrpg, ohg gur fgbel raqf jvgu gur cebgntbavfg vagraqvat gb trg n irefvba gung jvyy znxr vg creznarag.

So, what do you do with Gandhi after his viewpoint has changed and he's done the deed? What does Gandhi do with Gandhi? I think this is a case where hardening the problem by elevating the stakes obscures the issue rather than focussing it. Just about any means can be made to look justified by making the ends important enough.

If Charlie's depression is that central to his 'self', then taking such a pill amounts to suicide. The existence of a post-pill alternate Charlie shouldn't matter; it won't be him.

The parallelism between Gandhi and Charlie here is poor because Gandhi has strong, externally directed terminal values, and Charlie doesn't. You could strengthen the problem by making Charlie a passionately committed negative utilitarian like Sister Y.

From a human perspective, other people have a right to (what seems to you) stupidity as much as they have a right to anything.

To assert something like "you know what's best" is to assert omniscience, which if true wipes away all ethical questions when you can just ask "what is the best course of action?" and take that.

If Alex has a talent for painting, but a utility function based on how much good music is composed, and Beth has a talent for composing music, but a utility function based on how many good paintings are made, they will want to trade terminal values.

My thoughts: No, no, yes, no, yes, difference in CEV. Thoughts?

Edit: your downvote was not helpful. All it tells you is that you disagree or think my comment was useless, maybe.