Choice and coercion

[eirias]

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?

Comments

[eirias.livejournal.com]

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...

[leora.livejournal.com]

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.

[eirias.livejournal.com]

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.