Other answers have addressed the concepts behind the use of language
Indeed, I especially liked Robert's and Elemtilas' answers and up voted them. However, I'd like to point out something that hasn't been directly addressed by the other answers.
It isn't the language, itself, that's causing those effects. It's also society's behavior concerning the ideas that are being expressed — or not being expressed — that are involved.
In other words, the simplest answer to your question is, no. A language itself isn't enough to ensure behavior.
In an article by Mark Liberman entitled No word for "I" or "me" or "mine", he quotes Jeremy Fogel:
Different cultures understand privacy in different ways. In societies in which large numbers of people typically live in close proximity to each other, often in very small spaces, very little truly is understood or expected to be private. There are entire languages without words for “I” or “me” or “mine.”
Mr. Liberman then states,
Anyhow, Mr. Fogel doesn't give any reference for his assertion about languages lacking "words for 'I' or 'me' or 'mine'", but one language that's often cited in this connection is Japanese. ... As Wikipedia explains, "Some linguists suggest that the Japanese language does not have pronouns as such, since, unlike pronouns in most other languages that have them, these words are syntactically and morphologically identical to nouns. As others point out, however, these words function as personal references, demonstratives, and reflexives, just as pronouns do in other languages."
Mr Liberman continues with the discussion about privacy and the use of personal pronouns, but concludes...
So there's no linguistic support for the idea that Japanese and Vietnamese people are unaware of the distinction between themselves and others, or are uninterested in being free from unsanctioned intrusion.
In other words, a language can have no words equivalent to "I", "me" and "mine," and yet the speaker will understand his or her self, that they may or may not possess something, and the concepts of privacy and ownership.
Changing the language simply isn't enough. It must be accompanied by social behavior.
The first rule of fight club is you don't talk about fight club
It's amazing that a quote from an only modestly successful movie — Fight Club (1999) — is such a recognizable quote. Among the reasons it's memorable (beyond being quoted often by others) are:
- It speaks to a taboo or secret, and people like to talk about both.
- It engenders camaraderie (in the same way gangs do).
- It identifies a rule or expectation.
- It implies a consequence (and, per the movie, there was one).
In other words, saying the words isn't enough to really mean anything. It's all the social baggage that comes with the rules (including the potential of a sound pummeling) that ensures behavior.
I believe coming up with languages as you suggest is a great idea. If you think about it, a big part of the success of Tolkien's works were the languages he created for them. But that success was also based on the culture surrounding and supported by those languages.
Make the languages, but be sure to also make institutional (societal or cultural) behaviors to reflect the specific ideas that you want those languages to support or reject. Do both and you'll have a home run.