NationStates Jolt Archive

Ethically speaking, is there any difference between:

Somebody psychologically able to act freely, but compelled by the threat of death or extreme violence from another into making particular choices viz all their important decisions.

and

Somebody theoretically able to act freely, but compelled by subtle and powerful forces (instrumental/classical conditioning, hypnosis, whatever) so that while they imagine that they are free, they are actually as constrained (maybe even more so, because he can at least choose to disobey and be shot) that the first person.

Practically speaking, both people are restricted to the same course of action, the first because they don't wish to die, and the second because they believe it to be their own will. Really what I was asking is whether the nature of the restriction matters, consider the analogy of two schools, one stops kids from behaving badly through vicious corporal punishment (or even a death penalty), the other forces the kids to act in the exact same way by using lessons devised by psychologists that condition the kids behaviour.

Consider the analogy of two school's behaviour policies, in one the teachers forcethe kids to stay in line with threats of being shot dead, and in the second the kids are conditioned so while the appear to just be well behaved people, they are actually being psychologically controlled and have no choice in the matter.

These are obviously both highly synthetic cases, but I offer them to highlight the ethical issue aside from any practical considerations not directly relevant.

There’s certainly no practical difference. The threat of violence is often what keeps most people from causing harm to others in the most extremely emotional moments of their lives

Some differences, but they are quite similar yes

(1) Someone who is merely coerced as opposed to manipulated pervasively by their worldview or similar subtleties...can dedicate their emotional resources to ways to sneaking around these limits. This has positive and negative applications...this is why Germans in WW II who were denied the vote and hated Hitler found ways to pour sand in his war machine...but on the other hand it means the legal contracts are an exercise in who can make the most self-enriching yet unobtrusive provisions of the contract.

No tyranny can be complete, but no law will create virtue beyond that commiserate with the essential moral character of the society.

(2) Someone who is duped and used can eventually (though this is very difficult) become educated. So various manipulative mechanisms can last for a very long time with great security...and then tumble apart once their protective mechanisms are unlocked.

Moreover, the greater the divergence between the actual world and the contructed one of people thus afflicted, the lower the lifespan of the belief.

Also, it means that you can only maintain such controls securely when the population thus affected is isolated from anyone with the information and ideas to show the control mechanisms thus established. North Korea is an excellent example of a nation that pushes this mechanism of manipulation 'to the max' and must also take the most iron handed measures to isolate their society, or see their manipulations drastically compromised in effectiveness.

So there are four cases:

(1) Coerced person resisting evil dictates: advantage to resisting evil. Human ingenuity can seek any cracks in the coercion and often achieve a moral result covertly, or at least mitigate harm.


(2) Coerced person resisting compulsion to do good: disadvantage to creating good: lip service and hypocrisy are incredibly corrosive. This is why authoritarian religions are not especially virtuous (such as Iran or SBC communities in the deep South) in overall ethical practice: people 's ability to find pretexts to justify inaction or even covert evildoing is even greater than the above tendency.

(3) Manipulated person resisting evil dictates: disadvantage. Even a good moral character will have its options significantly curtailed if norms specifically endorse and make natural evildoing. Human empathy is a fragile defense because by designating people as "non human" either situationally or fundamentally, this bulwark can be entirely circumvented.

(4) Manipulated person being led to do good: advantage. "Benevolent Paternalism" in the model being pioneered in the industrial nations is actually meeting with surprising success. By misdirecting people and giving them satiation of their essential anxieties on an issue, or granting them cheap but effective rewards, surprising degrees of support can be created.

So to sum it up...the tyranny dynamic's outcome is all about the nature of the subject....and the manipulation dynamic's outcome is all about the nature of the controller.

wuld the second person be able to come up with "rational" justifications for their actions as a result of their conditioning? if so, then yes there is a difference. Because it'd be harder to argue with the second person.

To be brainwashed or strong-armed? That is the question.

I choose strong-armed, I hope I don't turn out to be be sorry. :)

Ethicly speaking there is a differance betwwen the two consider the position of the manipulater dishonest and honest. the threat of physical violence often creates a sense of fear however social manipulationis more cynical however less emotionly effective and the manipulated is unaware if he was aware he would no longer be the manipulated in my opinion it is much more evil and deviant because you are changing that person to your will which is most probably the worst right infringment of all