if at some point some one made an invention that can reverse emotion so If you feeling angry it pacifies you , feeling hate made you feel love . would you consider it manipulation ? or something good? what if you were depressed and they reverse your emotion to happiness or something to be normal ? if they did that without your acceptance ? would you be okay
Emotions don't have opposites. It's not like choosing between driving forward and reverse; you can feel all of them at the same time.
Emotions are also not quite as simple as people like to believe. Hate and love are things you feel but they are incomplete by themselves. They need to have a subject and something to trigger them. It's not like experiencing pain or cold, because they require you to have thoughts in order to experience them. So the only way to change how I feel about anything would be to change how I think about it; and that's a wild invasion of my privacy and personal autonomy.
I'd say that emotions do have reverses, but what that means exactly is highly subjective, counterintuitive, ambiguous, and different for each person at a given time. Also, an emotion can have multiple reverses. It's not like real-world geometry.
Ideally, an emotion-reversing device should figure out what reverse would mean for that person and that assessment would have to be continuously updated.
I also interpret OP's use of "reverse" not as based on objective qualities but more in terms of the person's attitudes toward their emotions (I'm feeling something I don't want to v. I want to, these two feelings never go together, etc.).
Like for me, anger and peaceful are "opposite" emotions, in the sense that my reactions when I'm under them are opposite (not thinking clearly, impulsive action, loss of compassion...). Though I'm aware for some people meditated and controlled anger is a thing.
I think I just have a different mental model for how emotions work. The Bhagavad Gita analogizes them to the horses pulling a chariot (the chariot being you, in your body). The horses each have their own drives and impulses, and that’s what provides the motive force for your chariot to get around. The task is for the driver (the self or consciousness) to control and master them so they work in harmony with each other to bring you to your destination.
You can’t trade away, suppress, or hobble any of your horses or you just lose horsepower. You may need to rein one or more of them back so they don’t pull you off course (and some people may need medication to aid in doing so), but they all serve their purpose and have their value.
I'm trying to think of any specific emotion I can feel that is mutually exclusive with something else and I'm drawing a blank. I guess you could make an argument about revulsion/disgust and sexual attraction, but then I think about Rule34 and have to acknowledge that viewing those as diametrically opposed is clearly not a human universal.
I can love AND hate the same thing at the same time. These compliment rather than cancel each other out. In fact, they can actually end up intensifying each other.
I'm not saying there are definite answers, but such a device could simply access your own ideas (conscious and otherwise) on how emotions work and use those definitions as a basis for its actions.
I would be worried about ethical implications. Theoretically, this could make killing babies feel wonderful, and looking at my newborn son would make me puke.
My brain is pretty fucked up, so I'd probably take the chance with a lot of precautions. But only if it was more of a refined tuning. A complete reversion would be terrible.
I wouldn't want that without my acceptance, it would be a perverse form of authoritarianism.
If you were talking about emotion control or mitigation, I might be more inclined to take the deal. Since my early days, I envied the likes of Data and Spock. I do not cherish strong emotions for the most part.
Also, you might be interested in the short-story Axiomatic, by Greg Egan.
2nd'd, also with a recommendation to read "Escape From Spiderhead", by George Saunders. Emotion controlling & reversing chemicals play a very primary role in the story, though their implications are less the point than the environment that the protagonist is interacting with them in.
As someone who struggles with self control, I'd take it. Sometimes your emotions make you do things you don't mean to (or not do things you mean to). It'd be great if there's something external you could fall back on when you can't manage yourself internally.
For the issue of consent, I believe there are degrees of autonomy, we don't have to choose between absolute control or total submission. Maybe you could delegate this tech to someone you trust, who you know if they ever decided to use it on you despite your resistance, you know that they did it with your best interest at heart.
Though of course there's the issue of how to find someone trustworthy enough but perhaps this is a task you could tackle when you know you're at your most clarity. Not a fool-proof methods but hopefully still reduces the risks somewhat.
If your struggles with self control went away, and you could choose how to act independently of your emotions, would you still want your emotions reversed?
In that case I think I'd want to keep my emotional response intact. I have no background on this so if anyone has any info feel free to let me know - I think emotions are a way for the lizard part of your brain to tell the frontal part if it thinks something is going on (the way pain is your body telling you something is wrong). So having this background sensor running correctly is valuable.
Obviously it would not be okay lol
While emotions can get out of hand, you do have emotions for a reason. If they are completely inverted you wouldn't be a functional person. If instead of feeling accomplished when you did something difficult, you felt disappointment - if you feel excitement and joy over doing nothing. That's just... bad.
If instead of inverting it merely dampens negative emotions, then apart from the rather subjective and nebulous definition of "negative", then it would still not be something you would want to be on for the long term. Perhaps useful in short bursts. It would be similar to local anesthesia - you, uh, definitely want to feel sensations in your life, but for surgeries it's nice that you can go without it.
Asimov explored this a little bit in the Foundation series. I forget which book.
There are functional equivalents of these available today for study. Tgose who grow up in dysfunctional homes will exhibit these symptoms. More precisely, the emotional response to stimuli is unexpected. They might laugh when someone gets hurt, or cry in anguish at someone’s success.this is because their own success was met with ridicule, and their own suffering made fun of.
I think it would be pretty cruel if the whole world operated this way, we would not last long.