eirias | Choice and coercion

That's painfully subjective. There are people (probably reading this right now) that would have the same coercion reaction to the option "Give me all your money, or else I'll kill this baby bunny." On the other hand, if that baby bunny was the one eating all the vegetables in my garden lately, I would smile and wave.

Courtrooms are chock-full of cases where people pull "involuntary compulsion" out of their arse as either a defense or a complaint. I'd argue it's about 50/50 where that scenario is reasonable, vs. when it's completely disingenuous, albeit convenient, lie. Is it sexual harassment - arguably a form of coercion - if I tell a female employee "aw, come out and party with us tonight, or else everyone's going to think you're lame on Monday" ?? Bet the knee-jerk reactions to that question are equally 50/50 split.

Umm, I don't see anything inherently sexual about partying. "Come out and screw a few of the guys tonight, or else, etc etc" = now you're talking sexual harassment.

I agree. But, there was just a case virtually identical to that where the woman claimed she was "made to feel like less of a person", and "felt like her job was in jeopardy if she didn't socialize with the group outside of business hours." (The woman lost...)

Of course I'm going to say it's subjective and full of grey areas. So there are two choices each with some level of desirability. That level is up to the person who is making the choice. If the levels are horribly mismatched then it seems more like coercion. How mismatched they have to be in order to qualify as coercion is also subjective. I'm sure there are extreme examples that we'll all agree on, but there are also many examples that would be a toss up. Also I would say a lot of times the intention behind the person presenting the choice could point towards coercion.

where'dja get the new icon?

The "intention" issue is interesting - can you explain a little more?

Well the intention issue is more fuzzy than I initialy thought. So the bank robber is clearly trying to present one option as unviable. It's the old "make him an offer he can't refuse". The bank robber is also in control of what the options are.
Lets say a sales person tells me I can pay with cash or credit and I have no cash on me. That option is unviable to me and I pretty much have to go with credit. The sales person didn't manipulate the options in order to make me do one thing over the other. The sales person probably doesn't care either way and may not know that one option is not reasonable for me. I wouldn't call that coercion though. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics. I'm not sure.

(The Icon is from Scary-Go-Round. A webcomic.)

I don't think it's a semantic issue, I think it's a real issue, though I think the addition of the salesperson adds a new complexity in that the salesperson isn't making the rules, just enacting them. If the owner of some radical Madison establishment decided to give its customers two payment options - lire, or Madison Hours - I think that would count as "coercion" or at least social manipulation of some variety. Because they don't even print lire anymore. (Yeah, ok, not really coercion because there's the third unstated option of "buy your freakin sandwich somewhere else," which most people would probably take.)

I think another part of that dilemma that you have to consider is the value you place on the "money" or commodity you are asked to hand over. If it is just something material then most people wouldn't feel that's worth making a stand over. However if there is a principle to be defended, then there is a class of person who would without thinking defend that with their life.
When the "or else" includes harm to other people then the equation changes again because the principle of harming others indirectly through your own actions comes into play.
It is a very complex dilemma, which is why most banks and businesses unambiguously instruct their clerks how to act in such a situation. An authority figure telling you how you should act alleviates any responsibility felt by most people. Whether it is moral or ethical to allow someone to simplify a dilemma for you is another can of worms.

This is not the way I look at things, but I feel like being devil's advocate...

There's no line - everything is a choice. A rational being will make the choice that maximizes utility to the best of his knowledge. Clearly, different beings will have different heuristics for evaluating utility. "Give me all of your money or I will shave your head" will be utterly ineffective on some people, and result in an instant cash handover for others.

Coercion could be defined as anytime where all alternatives are worse (lower utility, or at least expected utility) than the demand. From a legal standpoint, that's more difficult. One thought is that coercion can use the same definition, except that the members of the jury need to have roughly the same view of utility as the subject. (Or at least, to agree that the subject's view is valid.)

I haven't read others' comments yet, but one criteria that strikes me is this: if the "other" choice violates the target's rights, then so does the holdup. If you want to put things on some sort of ethical "scale", I guess I'd say the holdup will be less "bad" than just carrying out the threat, but linearly proportional to the "badness" of the threat. Does that make any sense? As for where you put various dividing lines of ethical badness, that seems fairly arbitrary. I suppose I'll go read comments now...

My first thought is similar to

cognative's final thought.

Trying to define "being coerced" is the trip-up here, because that's looking at the victim's state. Coercion is an action, so we should be looking at the mugger's actions to determine whether something counts as coercion.

It strikes me as "coersion" if the person offering the choice has, themselves, chosen (and announced their choice) to do something detrimental to you if you do not choose to do as they ask.

Thus, my choice to give someone a sandwich or watch them starve is not coersion on their part, because they are not choosing to starve. A choice involving no other people, such as between dropping my wallet of a cliff to grab a handhold or falling off the cliff myself, cannot be coersion.

Where the threatened detriment is particularly minor, so is the coercion. Threatening to kill a bunny isn't much of a threat (What's the detriment to me? I'd feel bad for the bunny for a few seconds), so any coercion based upon that threat would be pretty lame. "Everyone's going to think you're lame" is a strong threat to some ten-year-olds (and some emotional ten-year-olds), but to few others.

I think this bears more thought, though. I'll see if people feel like discussing this at Philosophy Dinner. :-)

I don't think you can define coercion completely without regard to the coerced. Say I'm trying to rob the bank but this time I offer not a gun but an unopened packet of peanuts. Peanuts are not much of a threat - unless the person I'm trying to coerce has a peanut allergy. Is it still coercion if I'm stupid enough to try to rob an average bank with peanuts? Is this where you draw parallels with

cognative's reference to intent? - it's coercion because the coercer intends to make the coerced obey his will through threat of something detrimental specifically to that person? But this has to do with the victim's state, too... because it may require knowledge of that person to determine what will be a useful threat.

I also don't think I get your sandwich example - in the sense that you haven't framed it as a demand from the person. I suppose one could look at hunger strikes as coercive, if one takes "unbathed activists wasting away on the Capitol steps" as detrimental to government people who make relevant decisions. I agree with you, though, that coercion is inherently social (which is part of why I objected to your first thought that the coercer's state is all that matters).

Say I'm trying to rob the bank but this time I offer not a gun but an unopened packet of peanuts.

I think I covered this when I said, "Where the threatened detriment is particularly minor, so is the coercion." Pretty much, anything you want to say about the quality of the threat you could say about the coercion. Peanuts are not a threat at all, hence threatening the bank teller with peanuts does not constitute coercion. Or you could say that peanuts are an unsuccessful threat, and an attempted robbery with them constitutes unsuccessful coercion.

The person being threatened is implicitly part of the equation, in that the threat has to be a threat to them. Most types of threats involved in coercion are threatening to everybody, hence this portion of the equation is usually irrelevant. However, a peanut allergy, or extreme emotional insecurity, for example, could make an ineffective threat into an effective one.

As for the sandwich thing, whether it is or is not a demand, it does not threaten significant detriment. (Hence, I didn't bother specifying whether there was a demand.) The threat involved in a hunger strike is not starvation - it is negative publicity.

Hmm. The following is in no way meant to put words into your mouth; I'm just trying to work through an interesting argument I think I'm picking up from your examples.

It seems to me that a distinction needs to be made between "coercion" and ordinary "influence," and I think the sandwich example gets to that. If you walk by me, and you know I'm going to starve if you don't hand over your sandwich, you may feel guilty. If that guilt prompts you to hand the person the sandwich, you have been influenced, but not coerced, to do so. Or...not?

There is (was?) an interesting decade-long debate in the helping literature about whether altruism really exists, or whether all prosocial behavior ultimately comes down to egotistical motives (feeling good, guilt reduction, attention, what-have-you). This coercion/influence argument feels like the flip side of that, somehow; is it possible to exert influence without coercing behavior, or is all influence ultimately just a form of (admittedly mild at times) coercion? That is, if I stare at you hungrily while you walk past, swinging your sandwich bag about, perhaps I am in fact attempting to coerce you into feeding me -- if I know (or have reason to suspect) that guilt is likely to be a strong motivating force for you, then I could be seen as deliberately creating a strong, unpleasant situation for you, in a sense "forcing" you to give me your sandwich even without the direct use of physical force.

In my personal view, by the way, coersion requires a) an immediate strong threat, preferably to life or safety, and b) the use of force (physical or otherwise). I wouldn't personally see guilt as a form of coercion, but maybe that's just because I can't really be guilted into doing very much. :D I also subscribe to the utilitarian "choice" belief delineated in some of the arguments above, and I'm big on personal responsibility...so if even normal interpersonal influence can be classified as coercion, there's really no place left for personal responsibility for choices. But, I figure if this discussion is going to go all philosophical, I may as well introduce another point of view to consider.

This is an interesting response and one I haven't really dealt with. I'd argue that guilting a person into doing something can be coercive, yes, and I hadn't thought about that aspect. I would argue that some confessions received by priests represent just this kind of coercion.

You and several other people have said that coercion requires the use of force. My problem with that is, how do you define force? - if I had a good definition of force, the original question would be answered. :) Some people, I think, mean only the threat of physical force applied to the recipient's body, but that rules out blackmail and hostage-taking from consideration and I think everyone would agree that those are coercive. But once you include emotional factors, you open the door for guilt trips and the like to be considered coercive, and that's just a big moral grey area full of, like, everyone you know, because seriously, whose mom has NOT done this at some point?

I think one thing this discussion strikes home for me is a more general point, that the morality of an interpersonal action is highly dependent on the characteristics of the recipient of that action. Which is not particularly new (

leora wrote a nice screed against the Golden Rule many months ago) but I think it really complicates any attempt to form a coherent moral framework in a way no one ever mentioned when I was growing up. (But hey, why poison children's minds with moral complexity when it's so much easier to give them a full Disney library and a copy of the Ten Commandments?)

I think maybe I've figured out where I'm stuck.

In cases where you'd say that the coercion is relatively minor, does that mean that the moral infraction of having coerced a person is also proportionately minor? Because what that would mean is that the _moral_ judgment of an action, not just its coercive or non-coercive nature, would depend in some way on the recipient of that action - that it can't be judged independently of knowledge of the person. Which would be weird, no? Certainly it seems off-kilter given that I know you're a moral absolutist. :)

I disagree with you that this portion of the equation is usually not relevant, because you'll get some variance in how noxious particular threats are to individuals. And I think that if you accept things like a bag of peanuts as potentially coercive devices, or that coercion can happen in degrees, you open up a pretty wide field of human interactions to a coercive interpretation. Would it be coercion if my professor said, "Hand in this paper by four tomorrow or you're out of the program"? If not, why not? If so, are we defining coercion in such a way that it becomes trivial? If all rules are coercive, what is their moral import?

Hmm. Lots of food for thought!

In cases where you'd say that the coercion is relatively minor, does that mean that the moral infraction of having coerced a person is also proportionately minor?

Yes. Also, the fact that "coerce" (like "threat") has a negative connotation does not mean that it is always a moral infraction. For example, to coerce a mugger into leaving you alone is not morally wrong. You are within your rights to defend yourself, and to answer a threat with a threat. (Though it may not always be a good idea.)

Because what that would mean is that the _moral_ judgment of an action, not just its coercive or non-coercive nature, would depend in some way on the recipient of that action - that it can't be judged independently of knowledge of the person. Which would be weird, no? Certainly it seems off-kilter given that I know you're a moral absolutist. :)

Of course I'm an absolutist. That means, for example, that I think that it's not okay for Dick Cheney to murder people for profit, even if the Dick Cheney thinks there's nothing wrong with it. I am perfectly aware that no thing or action can be evaluated in isolation. (Does a dog have Buddha nature?) An action performed upon one person is different from the same action performed upon another person. In the peanut allergy case, the same action might be "feeding" one person and "poisoning" another.

I disagree with you that this portion of the equation is usually not relevant, because you'll get some variance in how noxious particular threats are to individuals.

My apologies. This portion of the equation is usually not relevant to whether an act counts as coercion, which is what I thought was in question. The much subtler question of the degree of coercion is certainly affected by such subtle influences as the victim's level of susceptibility to the threat.

And I think that if you accept things like a bag of peanuts as potentially coercive devices, or that coercion can happen in degrees, you open up a pretty wide field of human interactions to a coercive interpretation.

As we approach a slippery slope...

Would it be coercion if my professor said, "Hand in this paper by four tomorrow or you're out of the program"?

The professor is presumably within her or his rights to threaten repercussions for a failure to live up to your responsibilities. It is coercion by denotation, but of a sort to which the negative connotation of the word (and hence its common usage) is inappropriate. I would not, in describing the act, say "She coerced you," despite its literal truth, because of the untrue connotation. "Pressured" would be a more appropriate word.

If not, why not? If so, are we defining coercion in such a way that it becomes trivial? If all rules are coercive, what is their moral import?

I think that my answer has parts of "If not" and "If so". I acknowledge that allowing for the gradation of "coercion" makes the boundary for the definition very tricky to mark. Your example sits right on that boundary, but does not, I think, invalidate its existence.

Let us say for the moment that all "if you ... then I will" statements constitute an implied threat of force (

leora's insightful bit on ultimata notwithstanding). Let us say also that some of these are legitimate and others are not (the difference between "coercion" and "pressure"). One thing I have just thought of that might delineate the two is the set of initial conditions for social interaction that preceded the ultimatum. In many relationships, it is clear at the outset what power each individual may legitimately exercise within the relationship. For instance, bosses are allowed to ask their salaried employees to work extra, unpaid hours in order to get caught up on an important project. This is part of what it means to be salaried. On the other hand, bosses are not allowed to do this with hourly employees. In that case, "Stay late or I'll fire you" would be grounds to haul The Man into court for keeping you down.

The trouble is that many, maybe most, human relationships do not come with a set of initial conditions that everyone agrees upon. Romantic relationships are an obvious example of this (and maybe this is part of why most people screw at least one of them up in some preventable way). Friendships can be another - basically anything where power is supposed to be evenly distributed or where the balance of power is not universally understood. Even in parenting the lines aren't clear anymore as our views of children evolve; "Do as I say or I'll beat you" used to be thought of as not at all coercive (in the pejorative sense) but as good parenting, but now in many circles it's strongly frowned upon.

I don't view the coercion concept as useful... at least not in the sense people seem to mean it.

I think a more important concept is: did you make a reasonable choice given the pressuring factors. Or you can call them coercive factors, except they don't need any sentience behind them.

Example: I worked as a desk attendant and we had a cash box. The cash box was often worth between $200 and $300. We were under orders if ever held up to hand over the cashbox and do our best to not get hurt. If we could, we should try to remember what the person looked like and report it as soon afterwards as possible, but we weren't supposed to risk our lives for $200-$300 (or less at the other desks). So, there's a significant enough pressure to make turning over the cashbox what a reasonable person should do.

If I were in the military and being tortured and threatened with death for military secrets, I would be expected to let myself be tortured and die for the cause. Horrible pressuring factors, but I assume they don't trust serious secrets with people who haven't accepted this.

If I were in a fire, I would run out, and if I had to, I'd leave the cashbox behind. Better to take it, but if it's endangering my life to try, I wouldn't. No one is telling me what to do, but the risk is great and the benefit to getting the cashbox out is fairly small if the whole dorm is on fire anyway.

This is why I've moved toward the steal the bread to feed your hungry family side of the ethical dilemma. Starving to death is too strong a pressuring factor and having some bread stolen is too small a cost. Plus, a society that can feed its people and chooses not to deserves to have its bread stolen.

I think that rational morality is indeed a worthy topic of discussion, though perhaps not an issue I have the stomach to pick apart with this audience at this moment ;). The question in which I'm most interested right now is the moral status of the coercer, which your perspective seems to sidestep. Which is sensible from the standpoint of "I am in this muddle; how do I get out of it?" but not sensible from my own muddle-free standpoint of trying to understand the relationship of force to morality.

I actually suspect the philosophical problem may be bigger than I initially realized when I posed the question - where do moral rules come from in the first place? who enforces them? is that coercive? what is the moral value of force, and what are the restrictions upon its use? - which means somebody must have written a dissertation on it...

Ah okay... the coercer... from the original post, either view made sense to focus on, and I find it easier to focus on is it okay to do this thing in this situation.

The coercer is trickier. I think it comes down to several factors: are you using force or fraud? (those are generally bad) do you have an overwhelmingly good reason to be doing so (yes, you can use force to drag that kitten out of the burning building or to get a child vaccinated, even though it doesn't understand what's going on)

The fuzzy line I tend to run into, since I don't hold up banks, is the line between threats and stating consequences. I often try to warn people about consequences of their actions that they can't foresee. Such as: if you do FOO, then BAR will happen. These are often things about what I will do or feel, since that's the info I tend to have and they don't. For example: If you read one of my private journals without my permission, I will not trust you and will stop being friends with you.

This may sound like a threat. But to me, it isn't. It's just the effect of your action. Similarly, if you swing me back and forth a lot, I'll probably get sick and feel miserable. It's the way I work.

But then you get into nasty forms of issues like if someone says, "If you break up with me, then I'll kill myself" is that okay? Generally not. In fact, I'd consider that a reason to break up with someone, as I view that as emotionally abusive. When it has actually come up with people asking for advice in that situation I tell them to say something along the lines of: If you feel that way, you clearly need more help than I can provide. You need to get into counselling for your own sake and the sake of this relationship or we won't have one for much longer. - That is also coercive. It threatens to break up with them to manipulate their actions. But at least it gets you away from someone who will try to constantly control you and blame you for their own actions.

A long time ago I realized that all interactions with people are manipulative. So, I try to just make them decent and generally not too harmful.

The line between an ultimatum and a statement of fact is, indeed, fuzzy and weird and may go back to

cognative's idea that intent matters.

A long time ago I realized that all interactions with people are manipulative. So, I try to just make them decent and generally not too harmful.

Yes, this is what I'm starting to wonder as well.

Choice and coercion

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject