I recently reread Robert Heinlein’s short story “ Coventry,” and it turned out to be a truly gripping piece. This story is one of those after which you long stare at the ceiling and ask yourself questions like “What exactly *is* freedom?” and “Can you forcibly make someone happy?”
The plot is roughly as follows: the events take place in the future, where any violence results in expulsion behind an energy barrier to live “by your own rules” in a special zone called Coventry, or you agree to psychocorrection, resulting essentially in biologically enhanced morality and making you incapable of initiating violence. Faced with these options, the main character named David MacKinnon chooses exile, saying, “Better a harsh but honest freedom than a cute and toothless dictatorship of good.” However, it turns out that there is no real freedom behind the barrier. Instead of paradise libertarianism, he finds gangs who mercilessly rob and suppress anyone weaker, fanatical theorists believing in their own exclusivity and absolute truth, and wild lands where complete anarchy reigns in its worst form and “might makes right”.
David immediately gets a harsh lesson when he is robbed almost at the entrance to Coventry, losing all things he had hoped to use for survival. Being completely helpless, he quickly falls into the trap of local political intrigues. Soon the hero learns about a conspiracy aimed at breaking through the protective barrier and attacking the peaceful, civilized society from which he recently refused.
This becomes a turning point for him. The hero not only begins to think about the path he has taken but also realizes that true freedom is impossible without any principles and mutual respect. As a result, it is David who becomes the key figure in preventing the attack and saving that same world from which he so brazenly withdrew.
In the end, the hero, having tasted all of local “magic,” understands that the absolute freedom he dreamed of actually turned out to be jungles where there is no place for either freedom or human dignity. He also suddenly realizes that morality is not a stupid relic but a necessary condition for any society where, at least in theory, one wants to live. Heinlein is kind of winking at us here: If you want freedom – agree to at least the minimum rules, like not initiating violence. And if you don’t want to – well, go behind the barrier and try to build anarchy there. It won’t work, it’s been proven!
And here’s an interesting conclusion for our project: essentially, the author proposes the idea of bio-amplification of morality. Not external coercion of it, note that, but voluntary acceptance of therapy to strengthen the inhibitor of violence. This is not prison and not dictatorship! It’s a perfectly natural thing that any aggressor eventually comes to, if they’re even capable of thinking and learning. Just instead of painful trials and errors through fights and traumas, a person immediately gets a chance to embed this morality into their own “operating system.” Agree, it’s better to install an “antivirus” right away than to dredge up the consequences later.
Heinlein understood the risks of violence and anticipated the idea of bio-amplification of morality more than half a century ago. Probably, it’s time for us to understand this and stop fearing bioethics. Because ultimately, conscious limitation of oneself from violence – that’s true freedom. The freedom of a mature, aware person, not a teenager with a knife who demands “to do whatever I want or I’ll cut everyone up.”
P.S. Voluntary acceptance of bio-amplification of morality in a certain degree resembles consent to attachment to a partner for the sake of preserving relationships and the possibility of comfortably living together, although everyone understands that activation of the neurobiological mechanism of attachment (through oxytocin, vasopressin, and dopamine) leads to a much stronger personality change than strengthening the inhibitor of violence. Nevertheless, in the mainstream, this is considered normal. So why are there still skeptics of bio-amplification of morality?!
