Is Coercion Bad?

[fakename]

I’m wondering if coercion is bad and I’m trying to resolve this argument:

1. coercion is bad since the very act of choice tautologically implies choosing that which is more likely to be chosen. But coercion attempts to change this choice and so it strikes at the very root of acting itself.

That is, coercion is against human action itself, since acting means to choose the most highly valued end.

What’s a good reply to this?

 

[Bix]

I’m wondering if coercion is bad and I’m trying to resolve this argument:

1. coercion is bad since the very act of choice tautologically implies choosing that which is more likely to be chosen. But coercion attempts to change this choice and so it strikes at the very root of acting itself.

That is, coercion is against human action itself, since acting means to choose the most highly valued end.

What’s a good reply to this?

I would suggest saying," Yes, you are correct ". That would be the best reply to the other party.

 

[danserr]

I’m wondering if coercion is bad and I’m trying to resolve this argument:

1. coercion is bad since the very act of choice tautologically implies choosing that which is more likely to be chosen. But coercion attempts to change this choice and so it strikes at the very root of acting itself.

That is, coercion is against human action itself, since acting means to choose the most highly valued end.

What’s a good reply to this?

So stated, the question is too broad to access. How much coercion and in what circumstances? Too much coercion could interfere with free will, but some level might be ok, so I think the circumstances need to be more specific.

 

[GEddie]

Coercion is part and parcel of human life as we know it. You couldn’t have a society without the use of guns and handcuffs to keep everybody’s actions within socially defined limits.

Yes, coercion is a restraint on free will. But since we, as a species, became sinners, our free will is tainted. Too many people would choose actions that are harmful to others, for a human society to exist without coercion.

Merry Xmas and ICXC NIKA

 

[nordskoven]

Coercion is always bad, suggesting temptation, pressure, undue influence to contravene a person’s free will. “Lead us not into temptation…”

 

[Bix]

Coercion is part and parcel of human life as we know it. You couldn’t have a society without the use of guns and handcuffs to keep everybody’s actions within socially defined limits.

Yes, coercion is a restraint on free will. But since we, as a species, became sinners, our free will is tainted. Too many people would choose actions that are harmful to others, for a human society to exist without coercion.

Merry Xmas and ICXC NIKA

Okay , then… I have a question. Please keep in mind - I’m not trying to debate or be sarcastic.

Where does one draw the line between coercion and blackmail?

Hypothetically, let’s say someone has wronged me, lied about me, cost me almost everything and accomplished this through extreme coercion or implied blackmail based upon yet more lies which would have been extremely difficult to prove therefore gaining what they wanted…
Now let’s take it a step further… Suppose he is now trying and probably will take as well as ruin any remaining remnants of what once was a life…

If, on the other hand, I had somehow obtained information ( true, provable facts) regarding this person as well as on another party that was involved - if I used this information to coerce as a means to stop any further damage, when and/or what is the difference between that and blackmail???
Keeping in mind, the information would (as almost all acts do) cause hurt to others associated with this person as well as result in probable emotional harm to innocent parties they are attached to as well as many other issues…
We know blackmail to be sinful. So, where is the line of demarcation?

 

[fakename]

user "GEddie":

Coercion is part and parcel of human life as we know it. You couldn’t have a society without the use of guns and handcuffs to keep everybody’s actions within socially defined limits.

Yes, coercion is a restraint on free will. But since we, as a species, became sinners, our free will is tainted. Too many people would choose actions that are harmful to others, for a human society to exist without coercion.

Well as far as the argument is concerned coercion=no purposeful action and this is because, its self-evident (but perhaps not to us) that all actions are taken for the sake of either attaining the most important end (at the moment) or avoiding a less important one. So coercion, or the deflection of an action towards the less important end, implies a contradiction that means that no purposeful acting exists.

Now I’ve thought of a few counter-arguments: 1) it’s obvious that the argument proves too much 2) it is likely that coercion raises or lowers the importance of ends before they are chosen. in such a way that something besides your first choice becomes the most important value, and thus is it true that no one chooses the less important end actually, but only accidentally.

So that’s my answer -any comments?

 

[tonyrey]

Okay , then… I have a question. Please keep in mind - I’m not trying to debate or be sarcastic.

Where does one draw the line between coercion and blackmail?

Hypothetically, let’s say someone has wronged me, lied about me, cost me almost everything and accomplished this through extreme coercion or implied blackmail based upon yet more lies which would have been extremely difficult to prove therefore gaining what they wanted…
Now let’s take it a step further… Suppose he is now trying and probably will take as well as ruin any remaining remnants of what once was a life…

If, on the other hand, I had somehow obtained information ( true, provable facts) regarding this person as well as on another party that was involved - if I used this information to coerce as a means to stop any further damage, when and/or what is the difference between that and blackmail???
Keeping in mind, the information would (as almost all acts do) cause hurt to others associated with this person as well as result in probable emotional harm to innocent parties they are attached to as well as many other issues…
We know blackmail to be sinful. So, where is the line of demarcation?

We have to decide which is the lesser - which may be extremely difficult. Fortunately we are not expected to be infallible but impeccable, i.e. obeying the dictates of our informed conscience to the best of our ability.

 

[GEddie]

Okay , then… I have a question. Please keep in mind - I’m not trying to debate or be sarcastic.

Where does one draw the line between coercion and blackmail?

Hypothetically, let’s say someone has wronged me, lied about me, cost me almost everything and accomplished this through extreme coercion or implied blackmail based upon yet more lies which would have been extremely difficult to prove therefore gaining what they wanted…
Now let’s take it a step further… Suppose he is now trying and probably will take as well as ruin any remaining remnants of what once was a life…

If, on the other hand, I had somehow obtained information ( true, provable facts) regarding this person as well as on another party that was involved - if I used this information to coerce as a means to stop any further damage, when and/or what is the difference between that and blackmail???
Keeping in mind, the information would (as almost all acts do) cause hurt to others associated with this person as well as result in probable emotional harm to innocent parties they are attached to as well as many other issues…
We know blackmail to be sinful. So, where is the line of demarcation?

Physical and moral coercion are acceptable when applied by, or in defense of the common good, normally via the legal structure; and when applied by those having authority.

Blackmail is neither physical nor moral in nature, and is used by someone who has no right to coerce you.

ICXC NIKA

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m wondering if coercion is bad and I’m trying to resolve this argument:

I carry a stun gun when I am on campus (would carry a Tazer, but they are considered firea arms which makes it against the law). That way should some one try to coerce me to handing over their computer (which happens to some one about twice a week) I intend to use it to coerce them to finding a target other than my self (and hopefully won’t have to use it beyond making a threat).

Technically I’d be using coercion to protect myself while the other person is using it as a tool for theft. I don’t think one can make a blanket statement that coercion is good/bad/neutral. You’d have to look at the entire situation (or what ever aspects of it are visible to you).

 

[WinterLight]

…coercion is bad since the very act of choice tautologically implies choosing that which is more likely to be chosen.

My first reaction, and forgive me if this sounds rude, is: nonsense. I know what a tautology is and I know what implies means, but I have no idea what tautologically implies could mean. Do you mean necessarily implies? In any case, let’s just get rid of the “tautologically” since I don’t think that it contributes any substantive qualification to “implies”. Even with this deletion, I still disagree with the premise. Is there an argument to support it? I could pick a real number between 0 and 1, although the probability of my picking any single number in that interval is exactly 0. In doing this I’ve chosen something that is least likely to be chosen.

But coercion attempts to change this choice and so it strikes at the very root of acting itself.

The “and so” requires justification: it is not obvious.

That is, coercion is against human action itself, since acting means to choose the most highly valued end.

I spot at least two errors. First, the conclusion depends on the implicit premise that it is wrong for something to be “against human action itself.” Second, this statement appears to equate the “most highly valued end” with “that which is most likely to be chosen.” This, again, needs justification, and I doubt it could be provided.

 

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Bix

I omitted the vital word:
“We have to decide which is the lesser evil”.