Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert

I [Parker Crutchfield] take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement.

In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does.

"Scientist" argues that drugging people for having wrong opinions is good actually and we should do it in secret.