Does manipulation break the non-aggression principle?

[Guest nickxenol]

Due to the fact that manipulation deals with controlling someone by either lying to them or exploiting them in order to get what you want, it would seem that you are initiating force. Especially if you are using abusive tactics to manipulate. I would love to hear what the community thinks. Thank you for reading and have a beautiful day!

[dsayers]

Why do you ask?

 

Especially if you are using abusive tactics to manipulate.

 

This is begging the question. "Is abusive tactics abusive?"

 

Manipulation is being dishonest for the purpose of altering the behaviors of others. Those behaviors are still voluntary, so it's not the initiation of the use of force. It is pretty pathetic though and people will react negatively since there are more honorable ways of accomplishing the same thing.

 

Not to be mistaken with coercion, which is defined by the initiation of the use of force. "Give me your wallet or I'll slit your throat," is not manipulation even though it's designed to alter behavior. The threat of violence IS the initiation of the use of force, which is why this is coercion.

[shirgall]

Obscuring an important part of the truth (or outright lying) as you convince someone as to a course of action is not morally justifiable. It's a "ends justify the means" problem. To leverage the categorical imperative, imagine that "manipulation when persuading others" was a moral requirement... that everyone had to use it, always. Does this lead to a non-contradictory society? I don't think it does because everyone would manipulate and everyone would know they are being manipulated, so they would never have valid information from others to choose a course of action.

 

Compare that to the maxim, "when negotiating a transaction, provide truthful, relevant, and complete information as to the value of what you are offering." It's clear that if this was universal it would not be contradictory.

[Ken Cotton]

I'm inclined to disagree.

 

Words are a physical thing, when taken at their most basic form. If you punch someone, that's considered the initiation of force. What if you throw a flashbang grenade near them? You've disorientated them with light, sound, and displaced air. Even if there wasn't the air displacement, there'd be enough light and sound to temporarily damage them. I think that would be considered the initiation of force.

 

If someone is perilously close to committing suicide, literally on a rooftop or something, and you tell them "Kill yourself no one loves you" I think it's fair to say you've initiated force. Whether big or little, you've affected them with a physical event ( your throat altered the air into soundwaves, which went into their ear as you directed them at them ) that had repercussions. Manipulation or puppeteering is impossible without strings. Asserting that the strings must be plainly understood like manhandling instead of subtle like conversation seems arbitrary.

[ParaSait]

I would say it's like lying. Not UPB, however it doesn't break the non-aggression principle. Manipulation isn't preferable, but since there's no force going on (you can decide to stop your association at any point if you want) it's unreasonable to retaliate with force.

 

EDIT: I'm assuming something like manipulation through shame and pity here. Of course it does break the NAP if the manipulation includes threatening.

[TheFreeMarketIsAnarchy]

In general I would agree with the above although I do hold that manipulation, specifically the act of purposefully lying to someone in some circumstances does effect the way we view the actions of agents in terms of responsibility/voluntarism. 

 

For example if somebody wishes to murder me and does so by poisoning an apple and then leaving it in my fruit bowl it is not my fault that I die here, assuming I have no good reason to suspect this is the case. Say further there is somebody who knows that the apple is poisoned and is in the room as I eat it but decides to say nothing this lack of action is a murderous behavior, even though there is no direct physical coercion or force.

 

The agent eats who eats the apple is only voluntarily consenting to eating a normal apple, not a poisoned apple, because at the time of eating it their ignorance is the reason they do so. So them eating the poisoned apple is not a voluntary act in a sense when we look at the knowledge states of that agent, because their actions would be reversed (most likely) if they did know the apple was poisoned. 

 

Now I do not think that where there is manipulation or lying of any kind then moral responsibility automatically does not apply, because we are in lots of circumstances responsible for the very ignorance which guides a mistake we make and so it is our own fault that we make this mistake. My argument is intended to show that the in some cases ignorance of the circumstances of an action will reduce the responsibility of an agent and thus the sense in which we would call there actions voluntary.

 

Is manipulation the initiation of force? No but it can be similarly morally abhorrent when employed in ways such as the poisoned apple case above. What do you guys think of my arguments? They are pretty much based on Aristotle's epistemic condition for voluntary action.  

[Mister Mister]

  Once the non-aggression principle is broken, self-defense becomes a valid course of action.  If manipulation is aggression, then force would be a valid response.  This isn't really an argument, just a syllogism about the consequence of concluding that manipulation is aggression.  But it would seem unreasonable to me to respond to manipulation with force.  The same goes with fraud I think, which is a specific category of manipulation with the intention of unjustly acquiring property from someone.

[Guest nickxenol]

Why do you ask?

 

 

This is begging the question. "Is abusive tactics abusive?"

 

Manipulation is being dishonest for the purpose of altering the behaviors of others. Those behaviors are still voluntary, so it's not the initiation of the use of force. It is pretty pathetic though and people will react negatively since there are more honorable ways of accomplishing the same thing.

 

Not to be mistaken with coercion, which is defined by the initiation of the use of force. "Give me your wallet or I'll slit your throat," is not manipulation even though it's designed to alter behavior. The threat of violence IS the initiation of the use of force, which is why this is coercion.

 

I simply ask out of curiosity. You brought up a very good argument. Manipulation may be an indirect threat of force, rather than a direct threat of force. For example, a direct threat of force would be "I'll kill you if you don't give me $5,000". An indirect threat of force would be something "If you are against this war, you aren't a true patriot". No threat has been made but feel that the threat of a threat has been made, which will make some comply (if you are gullible or such) and that is manipulation.

[Patch]

What if manipulation is used not for malicious purposes but to defend ones self?


I mean, we live in a society where no matter how you look at it, we still abide by some forms of tribalism to a degree. I think in a way manipulation was used to keep a way of peace sustained. I always saw peace as a form of manipulation in some areas, because as honest as I myself try to be. Sometimes you just KNOW the other person is going to get mad if you tell the truth. (However, at the end of the day through honesty and understanding, you will be set free.)


I feel as if I am going off topic here.(I apologize in advance if I am.) but I see manipulation more as a way to hide insecurities. I don't feel it breaks the none aggression principle USUALLY, because most people who have tried to manipulate me for example, where attempting to hide some form of inadequacy.  

I think manipulation rises from people who are constantly treated negatively as a child.  People for example who can't confide in their parents over emotional issues, I feel are more likely to become manipulative as adults. Because there's a sense of anxiety they feel if they tell the truth.


So in short, I don't feel manipulation breaks the none aggression principle, because from my understanding, aggression is generally used by "bullies" as a cheap and fast way to win an argument. Manipulation is like the spawn off aggression. It's used as more as a defense mechanism. Not so much as a way to attack others.

[Tweety]

It seems to me that there are different definitions of manipulation on this threat. In my view, first manipulation was determined as:

 

"Due to the fact that manipulation deals with controlling someone by either lying to them or exploiting them in order to get what you want"

"Manipulation is being dishonest for the purpose of altering the behaviors of others. Those behaviors are still voluntary"

 

and then as

"Obscuring an important part of the truth"

and then as poisoning an apple.

 

I would not agree that poisoning an apple is the same as controlling or exploiting by lying or being otherwise dishonest.

 

From my own experience, not so much with philosophy, but my experience in my family, I would say that I do consider manipulation by emotional blackmailing by my parent very abusive. But then I suppose as a child, my behaviour in response to that manipulation was not entirely voluntary, but more like having a gun to my head.

 

However, I would challenge the idea that the behaviour in response to manipulation is entirely voluntary, even as an adult. If truth has been withheld from you, are you free to choose the right course of action when you don't know all the true options? 

 

-Tweety-