#jonny has to be involved too otherwise its not tma at all

[gammija]

It's 'missing the RQ discord early-access channel' hours, those are the people who I'd rlly like to discuss [redacted] with

[avatarofthevast]

Influences, Autonomy, and Responsibility

(Hoo boy this got long. Also it’s a rambling, disastrous mess but I just kinda... got going. But it’s all... more or less relevant? Probably way more detail than many people care about, lmao I’m sorry.)

Lots of discussion has been going around about Jon the Archivist, and how responsible do we hold him for his actions particularly in MAG 141 and 142? And I want to tell you, this was a SIGNIFICANT point in that tma philosophy thing I was writing a while back (currently stalled indefinitely, sorry, I am what I am). So let me take a nice, hefty chapter out of that and weigh in on the subject.

I saw one or two people compare it to addiction, and that is a very good comparison. Let met explain why: Addiction works by hijacking the reward center of your brain. The reward center is what we have gained through evolution that has kept us alive as a species, rewarding us with dopamine when we do things that keep our species going, such as eating, drinking, or sex. We call these "instincts"; our brain's natural encouragement toward dopamine-seeking behaviors.

When a substance is introduced that artificially releases dopamine, the reward center recognizes this as a new viable source of dopamine, and starts rewiring the brain to seek it out, just as we seek out food or sex. It creates a brand new "instinct" for this new source of dopamine, to seek out the substance. This new instinct, or "craving", is just as real and powerful as your other natural instincts like hunger or thirst.

This, I believe, is very comparable to a person claimed by a power. Trevor Herbert and Daisy described it as a hunger, and Jude Perry said something along those lines as well. Jude also said, "I don't know what it would feel like for you, and itchy eye or something." So there is.... something. Some new instinct implanted in them. An urge; a call to action. Trevor Herbert even said it was stronger than the call of heroin.

So, now that we've related it to addiction, what does that tell us about personal accountability? Well, in my research I came across the article "Addiction, Autonomy, and Informed Consent: On and Off the Garden Path" by Neil Levy. (I'm sorry, I can't find a link that's not behind a pay wall. I don't know where I found it originally. But if you google it, it'll come up.) In it, he discusses the ethics of performing a study with ex-addicts in which the addict is offered their drug of choice. (Keep in mind being an EX-addict is no small feat. It's a lifelong struggle and a journey that includes a lot of tears, pain, and introspection. These people KNOW the price of giving in.)

The very young, very elderly, or otherwise mentally compromised are sometimes said to be unable to give informed consent, due to lack of understanding of the situation or its consequences, or because they are incapable of proper reasoning. So the question is then, does addiction so mentally compromise the brain that an (ex-)addict cannot be said to give informed consent in such a situation as being offered their drug of choice? Surely they have understanding of the situation. And generally they extremely thorough understanding of the consequences, yet many addicts will describe being offered their drug of choice as feeling as if they "can't say no."  But, can they truly not? It's very possible to find many cases in which addicts were in such a position, and DID say no. So how literally can it be taken to say that they "can't say no"?

Let's look for a moment at autonomy, or agency. Personal agency is what is deemed to be required to give informed consent. And autonomous action is one that is freely done given conscious consideration to all viable actions, and an autonomous agent is one that is capable of autonomous action. Not all actions of an autonomous agent will be autonomous, however. If you are reading a book and scratch your nose, you may not even realize you scratched your nose. This actions was not autonomous, because although while you were free to do it, you did not make a conscious decision to do so.

And it's not black or white, where an action either is or is not autonomous. Autonomy can be partially taken away to various degrees, whether by mental conditions, intoxication, or conditions that may impair proper cognitive function. Cravings, urges, or our natural instincts can interfere with autonomy. Yes, even something as simple as hunger itself. I made the comparison in my Jon&Daisy fanfic: If you trap a starving man in a room and tell him he only gets food if he drives a nail into the hand of a stranger, how much do you blame him if after a month he decides he can't take starving anymore? In the case, this man does not have full autonomy, as it is being inhibited by his urge to eat.

So how do we determine if an action of an agent is fully autonomous? If an agent has full autonomy, it is believed that that agent will act within their own personal morals. We can say then, if that agent performs an action that is outside of their morals, doing something that they believe is wrong or that they do not want. In the case of the addict, this is saying yes to drugs that they know will take them down a road they do not want to go. In Jon's case, this is believing that submitting innocent bystanders to the terror he inflicts is cruel and he hates himself for it, but he does it anyways.

Ok let’s wrap thing up here; I’m rambling. How much responsibility do these people hold for their actions? The addict, Jon, and Daisy? Well, there is no clear line. Some might say it’s just a matter of willpower, but there are many other factors involved, and it’s not that straight forward. The intensity of the craving, and the mental state of the agent (142 may have been shortly after the mess where he tried to Know Lukas’s plan, leaving him weak and dazed) both play significant parts as well. Intensity of cravings can range from “having the munchies”, to hyperventilating and openly weeping. And if one person doesn’t have quite the same mental fortitude of another person (willpower), does that automatically make them a worse person?

You can never know what another person is going through. And so, I don’t think we can judge Jonathan Sims to be a monster just yet. We can feel sad or scared for him. We can feel disappointed in him. But what would it take for him to truly be a monster? I think that would be when he puts aside his moral; when he no longer has any problem with what he is doing. You might ask, wasn’t he just justifying himself to Basira? Yes, however, I don’t think he was very confident about his reasons. I think he’s scared, himself, and was trying to justify his actions to himself as much as he was to Basira. Because after his conversation with Daisy about how he believed he was too much of a monster to deserve to live, I don’t believe he would flip that fast for no apparent reason. I trust Jonny wouldn’t do that (this isn’t Game of Thrones).

Wow, well thank you for sticking with me through my incredibly long rambling analysis of Jon’s recent behaviors. I was thinking about writing a fic from Jon’s perspective about his own thought process through episodes 141 and 142, but judging by how long it took me to trudge through getting this written, that doesn’t seem likely. Anyways, if you actually read this whole thing, I’d be curious what your thoughts are on it.