I find #1 funny, in that appetite and "self-discipline" seem to be biologically inversely correlated in at least some sense. Boost dopamine (such as with the old amphetamine-based "diet pills"), and you get more control over your impulses... but also your appetite goes away, so you don't even need to exert control over it. Lower dopamine (such as with a typical antipsychotic), and you get hungry, but also find it harder to override your impulses in general. (If you're curious, this is thought to help in psychosis because "skepticism"/"being realistic" is one of the lower-level impulses that dopamine overrides.)
If self-discipline were virtuous, would the "best" exercise pill be one that only enhances self-discipline (with no stimulant-like side-effects)—and thus makes it easy to be one of those people who just "decide to exercise and eat healthy" and end up doing so? Or would people likely still consider that "cheating" in some sense? And if so, do you think such people would be able to be convinced at that point that they're literally just measuring the "virtue" of people's genetics, rather than of their choices?
This line of reasoning is why giving children (or anyone, really) medication for moderate behavioral problems is an ethical gray area. If there is a pill that helps an unruly-but-otherwise-healthy kid sit still and stay focused, do you have them take it? At what point does an element of your personality become a medical issue?
Also why are issues past an arbitrarily-drawn "medical" line the only ones we can treat via medication?
No one thinks working out should be illegal. So why should doing the same thing via other means be illegal?
Maybe it's the lingering Protestant-work-ethic-laced morality of the U.S., but we seem to be disproportionately likely to exaggerate the dangers of anything that seems like a drug, relative to things that don't seem like drugs (even when they clearly are -- i.e., alcohol).
I have taken stimulants on and off through my life. I certainly don't need them, but it is very unlikely I would own a tech company if I hadn't taken them. They have almost certainly improved my life immensely.
I'm against giving addictive pharmaceuticals to children as a solution to structural problems in compulsory schooling. Consenting adults should be able to make their own choices.
As a once-kid who was fundamentally incapable of paying attention to uninteresting topics for longer than about 30 seconds, I'd have loved to take that pill any day.
It's not that I didn't care about paying attention, I really wanted to pay attention, it just wasn't happening. I think that's the difference - you wouldn't be forcing me to do something I didn't want to do, you'd be helping me do something I did want to do.
Yeah I understand there are benefits, and I didn't mean to make it sound like I am against medication. It is just interesting because our culture dictates what behaviors are successful, which in turn informs which behaviors are undesirable. In the end we medicate against unwanted behavior not for medical reasons but for cultural ones.
If self-discipline were virtuous, would the "best" exercise pill be one that only enhances self-discipline (with no stimulant-like side-effects)—and thus makes it easy to be one of those people who just "decide to exercise and eat healthy" and end up doing so? Or would people likely still consider that "cheating" in some sense? And if so, do you think such people would be able to be convinced at that point that they're literally just measuring the "virtue" of people's genetics, rather than of their choices?