A philosophical question.

[quarrel]

Is there any real difference between physically, or by way of threat, forcing someone to do something they don't want to and coercing or negotiating them into it? Should there be? I mean, the net result is the same...

Comments

[shaterri.livejournal.com]

I think there's a fallacious slippery-slope argument behind this. To me, there are three distinct activities here:

1) 'Negotiation' implies a mutual process, a give-and-take. Negotiations can be conducted fairly or unfairly, and some people try to act like they're negotiating when they're coercing, but fundamentally negotiating is about trying to get something for something else. Trading off annoyance-quirks with a partner, offering money for a toy, etc etc; but the point is that each person in a negotiation feels like they got something.

2) 'Coercion' is a bit more one-sided, but to me it still implies a process of assent from the targetted party. "Mommy, buy me that candy bar! Mommy, buy me that candy bar!" is coercion; mom knows that she won't get anything more than a little peace and quiet (if that) if she gets the candy bar, but it may still be for the best. Likewise, the cliched horny-frat-guy-and-date scene is coercion; it pretty much amounts to the same sort of pleading/whining. There can be more agressive coercion, and this one DOES shade a lot more into the next category, but I still think it's distinct, defined mostly by that act of assent.

3) Finally, threats (physical or emotional) or actual violence. The distinction here is that any notion of choice is illusory; it can be argued as a case of negotiation ("Tell you what. You can either have the hundred dollars you owe Vinny, or fingers that go all the way out to the tips. Your choice.") but fundamentally a course of action is literally forced on the target.

There are blurry points between the categories, and each is a fairly broad one; but that doesn't make them in any way morally equivalent.