3 ms·

"Unethically manipulative"!? WTF is that?

stcredzero 18y ago
I think that a mother using reverse psychology to motivate her child to do her homework is "ethically manipulative." I think a national leader using lies to lead his country into war is unethically manipulative. I don't yet have a formula for it though.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  I don't like that formula, because in both cases the manipulator would think it's for their own good. It's too subjective.
  - stcredzero 18y ago
    Well, that's why there is no formula! It's a sticky wicket. In the case of the mother and child, in most cases, the mother is correct in thinking it's "for their own good." Also, in that case, there's good reason to believe that the child doesn't know what's best. So don't try to put any formula in my mouth. I explicitly said I had none! (It's like porn: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.")
    - Xichekolas 18y ago
      At least you are honest about your beliefs. Most people get highly offended if you suggest that their political stances are nothing more than a series of gut reactions.
      - stcredzero 18y ago
        The evidence indicates that, for most, life is a series of gut reactions that we rationalize later.
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      Well, I guess I meant that any formula you come up with around that statment suffers from revisionist history, and a very subjective view of what is really good. I was objecting to the formula you hadn't pinned down based on the output. Most people would say that George W Bush deceived us into invading Iraq. Had he found a few nukes lying around, would that still have been unethical? A lot of people who think his actions were unethical now would probably not if the results were different, even though nothing was known at the time he did it.
      - stcredzero 18y ago
        If George W. knew that there were nukes lying around Iraq and used deception to motivate the US to go to war to get them, then I'd say that would be better than the current situation, but I'm still not sure it would be ethical. However, it looks like he knew there weren't nukes or any sort of WMDs there. In the case of the mom, the prospects for long term harm are minimal and the potential for long term benefit are pretty good. In the case of taking a country to war, there's always a whole lot of potential for long term harm.

I think that a mother using reverse psychology to motivate her child to do her homework is "ethically manipulative." I think a national leader using lies to lead his country into war is unethically manipulative. I don't yet have a formula for it though.

mattmaroon 18y ago
I don't like that formula, because in both cases the manipulator would think it's for their own good. It's too subjective.
- stcredzero 18y ago
  Well, that's why there is no formula! It's a sticky wicket. In the case of the mother and child, in most cases, the mother is correct in thinking it's "for their own good." Also, in that case, there's good reason to believe that the child doesn't know what's best. So don't try to put any formula in my mouth. I explicitly said I had none! (It's like porn: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.")
  - Xichekolas 18y ago
    At least you are honest about your beliefs. Most people get highly offended if you suggest that their political stances are nothing more than a series of gut reactions.
    - stcredzero 18y ago
      The evidence indicates that, for most, life is a series of gut reactions that we rationalize later.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Well, I guess I meant that any formula you come up with around that statment suffers from revisionist history, and a very subjective view of what is really good. I was objecting to the formula you hadn't pinned down based on the output. Most people would say that George W Bush deceived us into invading Iraq. Had he found a few nukes lying around, would that still have been unethical? A lot of people who think his actions were unethical now would probably not if the results were different, even though nothing was known at the time he did it.
    - stcredzero 18y ago
      If George W. knew that there were nukes lying around Iraq and used deception to motivate the US to go to war to get them, then I'd say that would be better than the current situation, but I'm still not sure it would be ethical. However, it looks like he knew there weren't nukes or any sort of WMDs there. In the case of the mom, the prospects for long term harm are minimal and the potential for long term benefit are pretty good. In the case of taking a country to war, there's always a whole lot of potential for long term harm.