Re: Superpowers and Ethics
I think there's a bit of confusion because people might classify someone punching someone else as "wrong" without considering whether it's ethical. Others assume that any mental coercion is automatically "unfair" and therefore unethical by default.
The lawyers among us can express it better and cite better examples, but in common law it's recognized that it's legal to break a law so long as it is in the course of upholding a greater law. To put it another way, it's permissible to cause harm, but only when a greater harm can be prevented thereby.
Personal example: I was visiting my Uncle Tom in Placerville when he went to help a neighbor by cutting down a tree on their property. As we were cutting the tree down, a branch fell on my uncle's foot, breaking it. I was fifteen and had no driver's license, but since my uncle was unable and this was before cell phones (and even before 911 was widespread) I drove him to the emergency room for treatment.
Under ordinary circumstances, it was illegal for me to drive, but allowing my uncle to suffer while one of us kids (my cousin was there, too) ran for help to a distant house of unknown location was a greater harm. In addition, my uncle was the one who directed me to drive him to the hospital. If we had been stopped by a policeman I'm sure he would've arranged for swift transport for my uncle and no-one would have been in trouble.
Example two: Shooting other people with a firearm is bad and, of course, illegal. Under some circumstances, it is legal to shoot a person. Usually it is legal when failing to shoot that person will result in immediate serious injury or death to the shooter or a third person.
Therefore, I suggest it's legal to use mind control to prevent immediate harm to ones self or a third person, and is functionally equivalent to restraining another person to prevent them from throwing a punch or using a weapon. The threat must be immediate (by which I would suggest this means the harm will occur before legally-constituted authority can reasonably be expected to arrive) and the harm averted must be serious enough to warrant restraining someone against their will.
Still kinda vague, but at least I'd be comfortable with a mutually agreed-upon standard (provided we can agree upon one) defining what circumstances warrant mental coercion.
Does anyone agree that, vague as they might be, the above guidelines are a good starting point?