[Political Philosophy] Social Pressures

[Dante Hicks]

Right, way I see it, there are three ways of getting people to do something they wouldn't normally do. I'm talking about activities which people can't be convinced to undertake through just rational argument.

1. Coercion (implicit or explicit threat or use of force)
2. Material incentive (paying them indirectly or directly)
3. Social Pressure / Censure

Now, we can say that #1 is illegitimate in most instances, unless it's in response to a prior initiation of force. So we persuade people not to murder because we'll get medeival on their ass. And so on.

#2 is generally preferable in a lot of instances, but unsuitable in others (it might be difficult to measure or motivate the particular type of behaviour you want to encourage).

But I'm unsure about #3. Obviously in some societies social pressure can become quasi-coercive, especially if you find it difficult to operate your normal life. But is it ever legitimate? I remember reading a book about different cultural methods of raising children and the Soviet Union used to encourage parents to use disapproval to "punish" children for wrong-doing, as opposed to violence - so "Little Ivan, your mother won't love you if you continue to do that" and so on.

If it is legitimate in some instances, can it go too far? What type of behaviour should we (as individuals / groups / society) reward/punish in such a method?

Or is my division of #2 / #3 invalid as there is only coercion and incentive (material / non-material being indistinguishable in practical terms)?

I'm not sure what I'm trying to ask here, so hopefully someone else will.

[queball]

The #2/#3 division might be better expressed as incentive vs. disincentive, or as personal vs impersonal. Someone offers you an ultimatum, two different worlds to choose between, to swap the order you value the two possibilities. Incentive is when this makes you better off, disincentive when it makes you worse off, and both can be used.

My dictionary says coercion can be moral or physical. I think it might be more interesting to look at whether the coercion is personal or not. If I offer money for a service then it's impersonal. But if I take advantage of someone when they're broke and force them to do some degrading, that's personal. Blackmail is attacking a person much more deeply than taking their money. Well, taking their money might actually be worse, but it's more hit-and-miss - it might ruin their life, but it might not. It's much more ethical to prod someone randomly than to prod them accurately.

Personal and impersonal games have standards of taboos but it's more to do with whether something is ethical than whether it's "legitimate".

So anyway, your starting point sounds inadequate. Normal? Illegitimate?

Whether people expect money for doing something depends on social values. When a doctor goes and fixes people, it seems strange to talk about making him do something he wouldn't normally do just because he wouldn't do it if he wasn't paid.

To give a more defeatist stance, coersion is tolerated depending on the circumstances. The Law is coercive, the state is coercive, etc. Issues tend to be more about minimising coercion than saying coercion is illegitimate, and then it all sounds meaningless and utilitarian. You sound like you really want to talk about power, but want to squeeze it into a libertarian schema. So a contradiction might be that you seem to like unions, even though they tend to go in for intimidation and political coercion.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

My dictionary says coercion can be moral or physical.

Yeah I know the dictionary defines it as that, but I don't find that useful. One of my friends started growing facial hair in some dodgy fashion and was told in no uncertain terms he looked like a twat. After various people had said this, he eventually relented and shaved it off. Was he "coerced" into doing it? Maybe, if we accept the broadest definition. Perhaps you can just read "cocercion" as "physical violence" if that'd be better.

A fine from the state is coercive (i.e. violent) in the long term because it is backed up with the threat of physical force. The "moral coercion" given to my friend was not backed up with implications of physical violence.

But if I take advantage of someone when they're broke and force them to do some degrading, that's personal. Blackmail is attacking a person much more deeply than taking their money.

I don't really think blackmail should be illegal unless the information was improperly obtained. I know that was auxillary to your point, but I just thought I'd say, in terms of coercion, etc.

Personal and impersonal games have standards of taboos but it's more to do with whether something is ethical than whether it's "legitimate".

I don't see the difference between legitimate and ethical in this context. I'm using the terms as if they were synonomous here. What's the difference to you?

So anyway, your starting point sounds inadequate. Normal?

Normal was a way of saying their motivation wasn't internal. If I ask you to do me a favour then I'm asking you to do something that wouldn't have ocurred without me asking (generally). As we said in the altruism discussion a while back the motivation can be internalised in which case it's different. Litter might be a good example, or netiquette. With some people there needs to be some sort of external motivating force (at least at first maybe). So perhaps there's a fine, or threat of imprisonment for litter or a threat of being banned from a forum for poor behaviour. Eventually though (or perhaps with some people automatically) people don't really want to drop the litter anyway, because they've internalised the rules. Well, on a superficial level that's what seems to happen.

Illegitimate?

Yes. As in wrong / unjustified.

Whether people expect money for doing something depends on social values. When a doctor goes and fixes people, it seems strange to talk about making him do something he wouldn't normally do just because he wouldn't do it if he wasn't paid.

While it may seem strange it's a useful to think about in the more general sense as a social system which depended on Doctors doing work for gratis all the time would probably run into severe problems. Forget the word 'normal' if it makes you uncomfortable, I'm sure you can see what I'm saying. We have a desired goal x, we have various ways of doing it. We could threaten doctors with imprisonment and make them work as slaves. We could chastise them until they felt socially pressured into doing it. Or we could pay them.

[quote]You sound like you really want to talk about power, but want to squeeze it into a libertarian schema.

So a contradiction might be that you seem to like unions, even though they tend to go in for intimidation and political coercion.

Well Unions are a good example of what I'm talking about. I think we'd all agree that if unions physically beat up scabs it'd probably be out of order, but is shouting abuse at them acceptable? I'd tend to say yes (within reason obviously). Others would probably say no. "Intimidation" seems like a blatantly loaded term. I'm not going to justify or condemn all union action in totality. I'd need to see individual examples of behaviour before commenting. So a threat from a shop steward that if a guy didn't go on strike action he'd get beaten up would seem wrong, but a threat that "no-one will like you if you don't strike" seems perfectly reasonable.

'Political coercion' is a meaningless term to me (see my above comments on coercion).

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Right, way I see it, there are three ways of getting people to do something they wouldn't normally do. I'm talking about activities which people can't be convinced to undertake through just rational argument.

1. Coercion (implicit or explicit threat or use of force)
2. Material incentive (paying them indirectly or directly)
3. Social Pressure / Censure

Now, we can say that #1 is illegitimate in most instances, unless it's in response to a prior initiation of force. So we persuade people not to murder because we'll get medeival on their ass. And so on.

#2 is generally preferable in a lot of instances, but unsuitable in others (it might be difficult to measure or motivate the particular type of behaviour you want to encourage).

But I'm unsure about #3. Obviously in some societies social pressure can become quasi-coercive, especially if you find it difficult to operate your normal life. But is it ever legitimate? I remember reading a book about different cultural methods of raising children and the Soviet Union used to encourage parents to use disapproval to "punish" children for wrong-doing, as opposed to violence - so "Little Ivan, your mother won't love you if you continue to do that" and so on.

If it is legitimate in some instances, can it go too far? What type of behaviour should we (as individuals / groups / society) reward/punish in such a method?

Or is my division of #2 / #3 invalid as there is only coercion and incentive (material / non-material being indistinguishable in practical terms)?

I'm not sure what I'm trying to ask here, so hopefully someone else will.

Its a hard one this.

Coercion is used by lots of different members of society, but effectively its use to bully. Coercion can become social pressure if the individual knows what will happen based on past actions. Dictators don't rule by using coercion, but rather the fear of it which results in 3.

Reward is a better word for 2. As part of it you may receive sexual or emotional benefit. Not necessarily just cash or things cash can provde. Some may feel (especially in a communist society) that their job, social living standards would be impeed should they not agree. Again I would say that 2 could turn into 3, because of the fact that its the fear of loosing what you have rather than just gaining. Also emotional blackmail from a indiviual is a relatively common place thing in most relationships also the reward is positive but maynot be material.

3 for me is the hard area. As well as posibly the starting place before 2 and 1 it could also be th end place.

All societies pressure is either quasi reward or coersive for me.

If you have friends they will often try to encouraeyu to take a certain decision (such as to go out). It could be quasi coersive or quasi reward depending on the way the social pressure is applied. Same can be said of a boss talking to an indiviudal or a state talking to a inividual or group.

Its also possible like Hitlers brown shirts that the state could have a group of individuals who extol the above without rules coming direct from the state.

Is it acceptable? That really depends on the legality and the moraity of the individual. I would say if it doesnt hurt anyone else and does not require something which is against the law its ok if the individual does not feel hard done by at the end of it.

Is it ok to manipulate ppl for what you want? Probably if you feel it is acceptable.

Is thee any situations were a state could do it and it be acceptable? Possibly during wars as things are often rationailsed or in times of economic depression.

I dunno if I answered this right but intresting thread

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Rumad

If you have friends they will often try to encouraeyu to take a certain decision (such as to go out). It could be quasi coersive or quasi reward depending on the way the social pressure is applied. Same can be said of a boss talking to an indiviudal or a state talking to a inividual or group.

Yeah, true all pressures are as queball said either incentives of disincentives. But it seems useful (perhaps) to divide psychological and material benefits. Or perhaps the distinction isn't that clear, perhaps its a finer spectrum of options.

Is it acceptable? That really depends on the legality and the moraity of the individual. I would say if it doesnt hurt anyone else and does not require something which is against the law its ok if the individual does not feel hard done by at the end of it.

Yeah that sounds reasonably sensible. The only problem is that it varies from person to person. Giving "social pressure" to a stranger seems a lot more unacceptable for instance. When I had long hair people used to ocassionally say "lol get a haircut hippy" or "**** you goth" or some equally intelligent comment. I found that pretty unacceptable. But if someone said something pleasant obviously I'm not going to feel the same way despite the fact their feedback was equally unsolicited.

But then speaking of negative feedback, at times I've dropped litter (accidentally usually, my pockets are usually full of Opal Fruits wrappers and stuff) someone has said "Oi, pick that up" which seems a lot more acceptable. Obviously the two examples are different, dropping litter is doing "damage" to a public or private space in a sense while I'm not really doing damage by looking like a bum.

So, anyway, do we base the acceptableness of "social pressure" on how the individual feels? I've felt pretty embarrassed when I've been asked to pick up the litter, but I don't feel hard done by. I'm sure some people would be pretty pissed off about it though.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

1) Yeah, true all pressures are as queball said either incentives of disincentives. But it seems useful (perhaps) to divide psychological and material benefits. Or perhaps the distinction isn't that clear, perhaps its a finer spectrum of options.

2) Yeah that sounds reasonably sensible. The only problem is that it varies from person to person. Giving "social pressure" to a stranger seems a lot more unacceptable for instance. When I had long hair people used to ocassionally say "lol get a haircut hippy" or "**** you goth" or some equally intelligent comment. I found that pretty unacceptable. But if someone said something pleasant obviously I'm not going to feel the same way despite the fact their feedback was equally unsolicited.

3)
So, anyway, do we base the acceptableness of "social pressure" on how the individual feels? I've felt pretty embarrassed when I've been asked to pick up the litter, but I don't feel hard done by. I'm sure some people would be pretty pissed off about it though.

1) well wit some benefits you may cross the boundaries of what is material and what isn't so tangable. A boss could pay for a prostitute for an employee for meeting his/her targets. Its matrial in the fact iit "cost" to supply, its non tangible in that the emloyee doesnt really get anything solid from it. Is it material or is it emotional or even psychological (I suppose thinking about it psychological could include verbal praise or support). For me I see complexities aso wre material could be applied in conjunction with the other two. I don't see it as a clear as eitehr f you define it, but then again I studied business at uni with only a few social modules, but for me its definitely not that clear.

2) I wuld say it does vary from indiviudal to individual. There are many problems with that including, however I would sa the standards are pretty similar, jus the perception changes. Take for instance the ppl that usd to atatck you verbally for having long hair. Everyone would find that as unacceptable, even the individual yelling it. However his social group clearly works on cercin so feels compelled t support the views of the group they are with. This means that the individual perceives that that unacceptable pressure is acceptable becuase of fear of not supporting the groups view.

The key though is all about perception and people understanding what is. I guess such standards are why people possess individuality. Everything is relian on the individuals interpretation.

3) Yep even in yur example of litter dropping social pressure is based on wat the individual sees as right and prudent.

Take my mom, she is religious and goes to church every sunday. If my views come into conflict with hers she would exert social pressure. Best example of this would be cannabis. While I have and do partake of the od joint, if my mom knew she would find it socially, morally and legally wrong. I dont see it as any as I perceive i as a bit of fun and something acceptable.

The above analogy could be applid to the litter example you give, You found dropping the litter "acceptable". However the person wh sas "oi, no" didn't. Same can said f so many debateable issues in society such as reintroduction of corporal or capital punishment and whteher criminals should be rehabilitated or imprisoned.

I suppose again it comes down to perception and expression.

[roadrunner_0]

surely another way of describing 3 would be peer pressure, which we all know that you should never give in to?

[Nodrog]

#4 Manipulation/persuasion.

I think #3 would certainly be legitimate in a proper society where the only illegal activities were those involving the initiation of force. In this case, the set of illegal things would only slightly intersect with the set of immoral things, and factors such as community pressure would play a large part in preventing people from performing certain actions from the latter category. For instance, although race/sexuality-based discrimination would be perfectly legal when hiring staff, the fact that a company would likely be boycotted if they were caught doing this would be likely to make them refrain from doing so.

At a more individual level, #3 might also come about as a sum of individual judgements against a person. If someone is raping kittens at night while shooting up heroin, I certainly wouldnt want much to do with them and I doubt many others would either. You can call this 'social pressure/censure' if you like, but in spacetime reality its just a bunch of people choosing not to associate with someone they find disgusting. Seems perfectly rational/justified to me.

[Boogster]

Where does propaganda fit into all that? Coercion of the mind perhaps.

What about deference as a result of respect - a decision made according to one's respect of an authority figure, and not due to pressure applied by that figure can hardly be placed in any of the divisions you have given.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

#4 Manipulation/persuasion.

It depends. Persuasion can be simply rational argument, or it can be something more. If something can be rationally justified to someone, I'd say it was more internal. That's probably a dodgy distinction though.

You can call this 'social pressure/censure' if you like, but in spacetime reality its just a bunch of people choosing not to associate with someone they find disgusting. Seems perfectly rational/justified to me.

Of course it's rational. I'm just wondering if it ever "crosses the line" into something unjustified (not illegal but immoral) by the "disassociaters". Let's say an entire town refused to deal with someone because they married someone of another race. Would we, as moral agents, care? Or would we simply suggest they move to another town?

It wouldn't necessarily have to be outright disassociation obviously, it could be more subtle ; people convincing other people to join the army to fight in a war or whatever.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

surely another way of describing 3 would be peer pressure, which we all know that you should never give in to?

Peer pressure implies pressure from, well, your peers. I'm not sure what I'd class people who hurl abuse from bus stops when I walk past, but they're not really my peers.

I'd agree in most cases it's probably wrong to change your way of life / opinion totally because of external pressure. But it's probably not always that clear cut. If there was a bar in your town which refused to serve you because you brought a black friend in with you, you probably would never go back.

But if they refused you entrance because you didn't meet the dress code, you might (I'm not sure) not be offended and think they were being reasonable. Next time you came out, you might wear a shirt / shoes / whatever to 'fit in'.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It depends. Persuasion can be simply rational argument, or it can be something more

You were talking about alternatives to rational argument, so I was meaning persuasion in the 'logical fallacies/emotive appeals/blatent manipulation' sense.

Of course it's rational. I'm just wondering if it ever "crosses the line" into something unjustified (not illegal but immoral) by the "disassociaters". Let's say an entire town refused to deal with someone because they married someone of another race. Would we, as moral agents, care? Or would we simply suggest they move to another town?
.

Well people are only responsible for their own actions, not those of others. A person who shuns another because of interracial marriage would not be more (or less) immoral if those around him also decided to shun. Of course I would say it's morally wrong for a person to do this, but this judgement is based on the irrationality of the individual shunner, not because of the social consequences his action has as a result of the community doing likewise.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

A person who shuns another because of interracial marriage would not be more (or less) immoral if those around him also decided to shun. Of course I would say it's morally wrong for a person to do this, but this judgement is based on the irrationality of the individual shunner, not because of the social consequences his action has as a result of the community doing likewise.

I don't know if I agree. Is irrationality inherently immoral?

If I refuse to do business with anyone called Tim then this is definitely irrational, but I wouldn't class it as immoral (as such). If no-one does business with Tim and his life is ruined then I'd say I was acting slightly more immorally because there were more serious consequences. Obviously I presume you reject the notion that people "ought" to help each other anyway.

edit : Or alternately : If I kick someone in the head once, I'd say I'm guilty of x level of "immorality". If I kick someone in the head after he's already been kicked in a lot, and I know he could die from my actions then I'd say my immorality was greater than x. I'm obviously not responsible for the other kicks, but I knew about them and my decision should have factored that in.

edit 2: I realise immorality isn't the same as illegality but it's the same sort of thing in this context.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I don't know if I agree. Is irrationality inherently immoral?

It depends what criteria you are using for judging morality I suppose. If you were using 'X is moral' as a synonym for 'The Bible prohibits X' then no, irrationality would not be immoral. By my standards however, 'deliberate' irrationality would most certainly be immoral.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If I refuse to do business with anyone called Tim then this is definitely irrational, but I wouldn't class it as immoral[/[/

Why not? It's not really any different from not doing business with black people, and you'd probably class that as immoral. The fundamental principle is the same in both cases (ie judgements based on arbitrary standards).

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If no-one does business with Tim and his life is ruined then I'd say I was acting slightly more immorally because there were more serious consequences. Obviously I presume you reject the notion that people "ought" to help each other anyway.

In general yes, but the issue here would more be a rejection of consequentialism. If we accept that morality can only apply to actions that people have direct control over, then it follows that actions should really only be judged in relation to the actor's context of knowledge at the time he acted. I wouldn't say that a drunk driver who hits someone is morally 'worse' than the drunk driver who makes it home safely, because the hitting of a person was a purely contingent matter that lies outwith the control of the driver. Likewise, the increased damage to Tim is a purely contingent matter, assuming the person had decision to not serve Tim's had been formed independently of the actions of those around him. If he was just not serving Tim's because noone else was, that would be slightly different.

edit : Or alternately : If I kick someone in the head once, I'd say I'm guilty of x level of "immorality". If I kick someone in the head after he's already been kicked in a lot, and I know he could die from my actions then I'd say my immorality was greater than x. I'm obviously not responsible for the other kicks, but I knew about them and my decision should have factored that in.

Well the two situations are dissimilar, since your context of knowledge would be different. Mixing peanuts into the food of a random person would obviously be different from mixing peanuts into the food of a person you know is allergic to them.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

By my standards however, 'deliberate' irrationality would most certainly be immoral.

Are eccentrics all immoral? (Although I'm not sure what you mean by deliberate)

Why not? It's not really any different from not doing business with black people, and you'd probably class that as immoral. The fundamental principle is the same in both cases (ie judgements based on arbitrary standards).

No, I wouldn't say that in isolation ot doing business with black people is immoral. It is obviously can be in certain contexts (like our current society).

then it follows that actions should really only be judged in relation to the actor's context of knowledge at the time he acted. I wouldn't say that a drunk driver who hits someone is morally 'worse' than the drunk driver who makes it home safely, because the hitting of a person was a purely contingent matter that lies outwith the control of the driver.

Indeed, but in the example I gave I was thinking you knew that no-one else was serving Tim either. So, Chinese guy walks into town. You know everyone else is racist against Chinese people and won't sell him food or water. I'd say that makes your decision here not to sell him food and water worse than in a situation where you know there are hundreds of other places he can get supplies.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Are eccentrics all immoral?

Only the ones that are detrimental to life/happyness.

(Although I'm not sure what you mean by deliberate)

People can make mistakes. Consider a person who treats black people differently because he believes they are fundamentally different from himself and has reasonable evidence for this conclusion (think people a few hundred years ago). I would claim this is different from a person who today believes black people are different from whites, as a result of deliberately ignoring the evidence to the contrary.

So, Chinese guy walks into town. You know everyone else is racist against Chinese people and won't sell him food or water. I'd say that makes your decision here not to sell him food and water worse than in a situation where you know there are hundreds of other places he can get supplies.

It certianly has worse consequences casually, yes. However I would reject the notion that casual responsibility and moral responsibility are equivalent, or even closely related. A lot of things can happen as a direct result of a person's actions that I wouldnt hold them morally responsible for,

[queball]

So it's not more immoral to refuse to feed a starving man than a healthy man?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by queball

So it's not more immoral to refuse to feed a starving man than a healthy man?

It would depend on cost/benefit analysis. I'd certainly get more pleasure from helping a starving man than a healthy one, but you'd also have to factor in things such as how much the food cost and how hungry you are. If I havent eaten for a few days and just bought a fish supper, I'm unlikely to want to give any of it to a homeless person.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Only the ones that are detrimental to life/happyness.

Whose life and whose happiness? I imagine it's quite possible to have a full and enjoyable life while still maintaining a dislike for Tim's, or Chinamen, or whomever else. Being racist is probably beneficial in many circles. Or are we considering everyone elses life and happiness? If so, why?

I would claim this is different from a person who today believes black people are different from whites, as a result of deliberately ignoring the evidence to the contrary.

That's fair enough, but black people are different. Sure, not in any important sense but I'm not sure you can class one category of discrimination as irrational/immoral or whatever. Someone who said "I've never dated, and would never date a black woman" wouldn't be considered particularly irrational/immoral, so I'm not sure why someone said "would never engage a black business partner" would be that much worse. Sure, aesthetics are more important while dating/screwing, but they seem relatively important in every day interaction too. I'd much prefer to work with people who liked rock music than those who didn't, for instance.

It certianly has worse consequences casually, yes. However I would reject the notion that casual responsibility and moral responsibility are equivalent, or even closely related.

That's not really answering the question though. I agree that consequences are not the same as morality. But surely you factor in the consequences of an action before acting? (even if the consequences are not "direct"). Sure, you're not likely to give up your meal if you're hungry (to use queballs example) but that's not what's being asked. You seem to be avoiding answering him directly.