Recent development of behavioral techniques raises a serious ethical-dilemma to the pracioner and investigator of behavior change as-experienced in nuclear physics. Since scientific technologies are ethically neutral, no one can have ultimate assurance that they would contribute to the advancement of human welfare. In this paper, concerns are expressed about both fitfalls and hopes, which-depend on our moral choices in their application. Though not eminent, it is a real possibility that increasing knowledge about the control of human behavior is monopolized by a few previledged individuals and groups, and is applied to manipulate the behavior of others for their own sake. Behavioral laws which are, ipso facto, fragmental, connecting a few antecedent conditions an their consequents, could be considered as good means for those who have a bad faith to utilizy only specific performance of people even under the sacrifice of their personal growth. The issue here is not suggesting that we should avoid behavior control under all cirumstances but merely to make it clear that we should worry about the massive manipulation in all influence attempts. Attempts to find answers to this problem by assuming controlfree situations in our life is neither possible nor desirable. This being the case, it is more realistic solution that we should take an ethical point of view on the practice of social influences. It is argued that we can not only mitigate the dehumanizing effects of new developments in the field of behavior change but also enhance the growth of individuals through behavioral knowledge if the ethical ambiguities inherent therein are clarified. Moral standards can be established in such a way that behavioral technologies be applied toward the welfare of the influencee rather than the welfare of the influencing agent. Among others, this process assumes that the influencee is aware of what he wants to be and is willing to take responsibility for acting on his free choice.