4 ms·

> That seems oddly narrow. As a contrived example (I like stress-testing ethical intuitions) would you consider barricading the doors and windows of someone's h

> That seems oddly narrow. As a contrived example (I like stress-testing ethical intuitions) would you consider barricading the doors and windows of someone's home and waiting for them to starve to death to qualify as physical violence? Yes, the barricader has “initiated force” because “man” owns his body and his possessions. Vandalizing the possessions is analogous to assaulting the body. (My language is clumsy.) > I'll also perfunctorially object to terms like "man" or "human", but I doubt that's a contextually relevant distinction, given linguistic history and the lack of any other sapient species respectively.) Noted.

a1369209993 6y ago
Fair point. How about if they're in some public or abandoned building and the barricader locks or obstructs the exits to the same effect?
- burrows 6y ago
  It’s analogous to a stranger tackling me and pinning me until I starve to death. The use of wood and nails is immaterial. You go to a “friend’s” house. You go to the bathroom, but it’s actually a soundproofed room with a door that locks from the outside. He doesn’t let you out and you die from starvation. What is your view on this? The friend owns the home so the vandal-argument doesn’t make sense.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > You go to a “friend’s” house. You go to the bathroom, but it’s actually a soundproofed room with a door that locks from the outside. He doesn’t let you out and you die from starvation. What is your view on this? That it's a type of attack (and potentially coercion) relevantly distinct from physical violence. Hence why I found your definition of coercion as initiating physical violence oddly narrow.
    - burrows 6y ago
      Ok. I am not happy with my definition of coercion. I think it should mostly include things that physically alter or arrest man’s body or property. Punching someone is coercion. Advertising is not coercion. Threatening to punch someone is maybe coercion. Stealing a wallet is coercion. Firing someone (and reducing his income) is not coercion. An uninsured bank going bankrupt is probably not coercing its customers. Maybe I mean “violate natural rights” rather than “coerce”.
      - a1369209993 6y ago
        > I think it should mostly include things that physically alter or arrest man's body or property. Ah, yes, this makes significantly more sense. > Maybe I mean "violate natural rights" rather than "coerce". Well, "coerce" obviously has a "or threaten to do so" and a "in order to cause or prevent certain behaviour" tacked onto it's definition, but "violate natural rights" otherwise seems like a plausible definition in and of itself; the question that immediately follows being what qualifies as a natural right. Absence of unprovoked physical violence certainly sounds like it would be included in that, but short of contrived and circular definitions of "violence" and "physical", it isn't really sufficient.
      - 8note 6y ago
        If you heard the statement "manager coerces their employee into sex" things immediately come to mind, either involving withheld promotions or firings, so I don't think that's nearly so cut and dry. A better definition of coercion is to use power over someone to make them do something you want. Might even be a dictionary definition. All of the examples could be coercion using this definition, and its clearer how to treat the grey zones: the punch uses physical power over you; without trying to make you do something it's not coercion though Advertising might be if they're using tricks to bypass your judgement Threatening to punch someone is definitely coercion, unless you are stronger than them/they don't have that power Stealing your wallet definitely is Firing somebody sometimes is. The big questions are: - does the company(or manager) have power of the individual? Eg. Can the employee easily replace the company; do they even need a job? Are they on a work visa? - is the company trying to make them do something?

a1369209993 6y ago

Fair point. How about if they're in some public or abandoned building and the barricader locks or obstructs the exits to the same effect?

burrows 6y ago
It’s analogous to a stranger tackling me and pinning me until I starve to death. The use of wood and nails is immaterial. You go to a “friend’s” house. You go to the bathroom, but it’s actually a soundproofed room with a door that locks from the outside. He doesn’t let you out and you die from starvation. What is your view on this? The friend owns the home so the vandal-argument doesn’t make sense.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > You go to a “friend’s” house. You go to the bathroom, but it’s actually a soundproofed room with a door that locks from the outside. He doesn’t let you out and you die from starvation. What is your view on this? That it's a type of attack (and potentially coercion) relevantly distinct from physical violence. Hence why I found your definition of coercion as initiating physical violence oddly narrow.
  - burrows 6y ago
    Ok. I am not happy with my definition of coercion. I think it should mostly include things that physically alter or arrest man’s body or property. Punching someone is coercion. Advertising is not coercion. Threatening to punch someone is maybe coercion. Stealing a wallet is coercion. Firing someone (and reducing his income) is not coercion. An uninsured bank going bankrupt is probably not coercing its customers. Maybe I mean “violate natural rights” rather than “coerce”.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      > I think it should mostly include things that physically alter or arrest man's body or property. Ah, yes, this makes significantly more sense. > Maybe I mean "violate natural rights" rather than "coerce". Well, "coerce" obviously has a "or threaten to do so" and a "in order to cause or prevent certain behaviour" tacked onto it's definition, but "violate natural rights" otherwise seems like a plausible definition in and of itself; the question that immediately follows being what qualifies as a natural right. Absence of unprovoked physical violence certainly sounds like it would be included in that, but short of contrived and circular definitions of "violence" and "physical", it isn't really sufficient.
    - 8note 6y ago
      If you heard the statement "manager coerces their employee into sex" things immediately come to mind, either involving withheld promotions or firings, so I don't think that's nearly so cut and dry. A better definition of coercion is to use power over someone to make them do something you want. Might even be a dictionary definition. All of the examples could be coercion using this definition, and its clearer how to treat the grey zones: the punch uses physical power over you; without trying to make you do something it's not coercion though Advertising might be if they're using tricks to bypass your judgement Threatening to punch someone is definitely coercion, unless you are stronger than them/they don't have that power Stealing your wallet definitely is Firing somebody sometimes is. The big questions are: - does the company(or manager) have power of the individual? Eg. Can the employee easily replace the company; do they even need a job? Are they on a work visa? - is the company trying to make them do something?