Choice and coercion
It's ethics time!
It's a familiar story: You're a teller at a bank and a guy comes in with a loaded gun and says, "Give me all your money or else I'll shoot." Ostensibly, he's offering you a choice between cooperation and death. However, ethically, most people do not consider this to be a real choice. Because the alternative is so noxious, it's said, it is not actually an alternative; this situation counts as forcing a person to do something against his will.
What I'm wondering is, how noxious does the "or else" have to be for the above to hold? Does it have to be lethal, or even physical? What is the line between choice and coercion?
It's a familiar story: You're a teller at a bank and a guy comes in with a loaded gun and says, "Give me all your money or else I'll shoot." Ostensibly, he's offering you a choice between cooperation and death. However, ethically, most people do not consider this to be a real choice. Because the alternative is so noxious, it's said, it is not actually an alternative; this situation counts as forcing a person to do something against his will.
What I'm wondering is, how noxious does the "or else" have to be for the above to hold? Does it have to be lethal, or even physical? What is the line between choice and coercion?
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject