Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Does psychological coercion exist?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I think you're making a big leap here. Psychological warfare can and generally does occur without the use of force. Now, I'm sure there are some heavy examples, such as shooting someone in the head--or the modern Iraqi alternative, to cut off someone's head with a dull knife--that have been used throughout history, but most forces have constraints that don't allow them to coerce. For example, a military force dropping leaflets from an airplane, dispersing money and food, and building schools can affect the choices of a population, but those are simply methods of persuasion, not coercion.

yep, and I guess my question is whether Fraud may occur with persuasion. For example if someone defaults on you, causing you terrible (physical why not) loss: no force is involved, isn't that fraud, and thus coercion anyway?

I just realized what I'd been saying! I always intended to say coercion without force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Maybe we should first define if there is such a thing as psychological violence, and then, if it exists, wonder if there is such a thing as psychological coercion.

I have been mixing the two things.

We can easily talk about physical coercion because

1) we know that physical violence exist and we can find objective evidence of it (wounds, property loss, days in jail, etc.)

2) we know that physical violence can be imposed against your will (e.g. we can easily determine you got your wound because you practice karate or boxing)

To be able to talk about psychologial coercion, we would need to

1) determine whether physhological violence exist, and objective evidences for it (odd behaviour? low performance at work? sexual disfunction? depression?)

2) determine whether this kind of violence can be imposed against your will (i.e. whether you cannot escape from the situation, at least for a temporarily)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we should first define if there is such a thing as psychological violence, and then, if it exists, wonder if there is such a thing as psychological coercion.

I have been mixing the two things.

We can easily talk about physical coercion because

1) we know that physical violence exist and we can find objective evidence of it (wounds, property loss, days in jail, etc.)

2) we know that physical violence can be imposed against your will (e.g. we can easily determine you got your wound because you practice karate or boxing)

To be able to talk about psychologial coercion, we would need to

1) determine whether physhological violence exist, and objective evidences for it (odd behaviour? low performance at work? sexual disfunction? depression?)

2) determine whether this kind of violence can be imposed against your will (i.e. whether you cannot escape from the situation, at least for a temporarily)

Agree, and I believe the big elephant in the room is "Mind Control" or at least Hypnosis or NLP. But who really wants to debate that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold on, I agree that's the most literal definition, the most likely to be able to present legally. But we are looking for the truth here, not quotes carved in stone (I believe Objectivism is expressly against it).

However, and unlike the Warlord, the Priest exerted his power through fear. That's the basic of 10.000 years of human religion. Would that qualify as "psychological coercion" or as fraud. And in thae latter case we'll have to agree that fraud may exist without coercion, or rather that fraud isn't itself a form of coercion.

Yeah, we are maybe getting closer to the point.

Maybe all acts of coercion are acts of violence, but not all acts of violence are acts of coercion. And those acts of violence that are not act of coercion belong to the realm of personal morality. We still should make moral judgements on them, but we could not ask the government to use physical force as a form of "retaliation", as my rights were not violated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree, and I believe the big elephant in the room is "Mind Control" or at least Hypnosis or NLP. But who really wants to debate that?

No, no no! It goes beyond hypnosis and NLP!

Picture John Galt tied to the bed and the generator, about to get the electric shocks.

Now picture John Galt inside a last-generation MRI machine that can show changes in brain cortex derived from the pain he is about to experience.

The torture starts, and you get the typical pattern of pain in the cortex.

Then the bad guys stop the electric shocks, The brain pattern get back to normal. And now the bad guys bring Dagny to the room and start hurting her in front of John Galt, in a way I won't describe here.

What would be the pattern shown in John Galt's brain if he had to witness Dagny's suffering?

Wouldn't we have an objective demostration of Johns Galt pain, elicited by witnessing his must beloved person suffer?

Pain and suffering have a subjective as well as an objective component. You will be never able to experience John Galt's pain for Dagny, but you will certainly be able to SEE, wihout any doubt, a brain activity pattern consistent with pain, and with deep pain. You will then say that John is being tortured. That his brain (and, through neurohormonal mechanisms his whole body) is being hurt, injured, against his will, even if the generator has broken. The electrochemical shocks are being produced by the sight of an scene, deliberately produced by Ferris and his crew.

That phychological torture represents an EVIL by itself, indepently of the fact that John Galt is tied to the bed and cannot escape. The evil goes beyond the restriction of Galt's freedom to move. It goes to the damage made to his values.

I don't know I have made my case, but I think physchological violence exists. I still don't mean that psychological coercion exists. That would take further analysis.

Edited by Hotu Matua
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we should first define if there is such a thing as psychological violence, and then, if it exists, wonder if there is such a thing as psychological coercion.

Violence and coercion are both physical. The psychological is not physical, therefore there can be no such thing as psychological violence. Coercion is defined as inflicting obedience against the will of a victim, so it has a moral evaluation of being wrong. Violence is simply physical action which is fast or powerful, it is not inherently against the will of the participants. Boxers are violent and their rights are intact.

There can be harm inflicted non-violently and even harm inflicted non-coercively. Harm can be inflicted even by inanimate natural events. Harm cannot the standard for judging if rights have been violated.

Rights are only violated by physical force or the threat of force applied against the will of the victim to the victim or his property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no no! It goes beyond hypnosis and NLP!

Picture John Galt tied to the bed and the generator, about to get the electric shocks.

Now picture John Galt inside a last-generation MRI machine that can show changes in brain cortex derived from the pain he is about to experience.

The torture starts, and you get the typical pattern of pain in the cortex.

Then the bad guys stop the electric shocks, The brain pattern get back to normal. And now the bad guys bring Dagny to the room and start hurting her in front of John Galt, in a way I won't describe here.

What would be the pattern shown in John Galt's brain if he had to witness Dagny's suffering?

Wouldn't we have an objective demostration of Johns Galt pain, elicited by witnessing his must beloved person suffer?

Pain and suffering have a subjective as well as an objective component. You will be never able to experience John Galt's pain for Dagny, but you will certainly be able to SEE, wihout any doubt, a brain activity pattern consistent with pain, and with deep pain. You will then say that John is being tortured. That his brain (and, through neurohormonal mechanisms his whole body) is being hurt, injured, against his will, even if the generator has broken. The electrochemical shocks are being produced by the sight of an scene, deliberately produced by Ferris and his crew.

That phychological torture represents an EVIL by itself, indepently of the fact that John Galt is tied to the bed and cannot escape. The evil goes beyond the restriction of Galt's freedom to move. It goes to the damage made to his values.

I don't know I have made my case, but I think physchological violence exists. I still don't mean that psychological coercion exists. That would take further analysis.

Your example relies on actual physical force, psychological torture cannot exist without it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Picture John Galt tied to the bed and the generator, about to get the electric shocks.

Galt's rights are being violated when he is tortured. Dagny's rights but not Galt's are being violated when she is tortured. If Galt had the freedom to act, Galt has the right to coerce the torturer (and even to torture the torturer) to stop hurting Dagny because the torturer has no right to torture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an appeal to a primacy of consciousness perspective, treating subjective mental states as more important than reality. Rights are objective, not subjective.

I despise Islam. My continued existence is a deliberate infliction of pain in other human beings. Fuck them and their precious feelings.

Mmm... I do not agree with your first proposition and I consider the second one irrelevant.

MENTAL STATES

Pain has a subjective as well as an objective component.

As neurosciences make progress, we are starting to be able to detect, see, map, measure these things.

Denying an objective component of pain would put them in the realm of the mystical.

Pain is like rain, hail, thunderstorms. It is part of physical reality as well.

Now, how the pain is experienced by a particular man in a particular moment? That is the subjective part. That subjective mental state is beyond my responsibility.

I am wondering whether it is possible to hinder another's man pursuit of his values without resorting to a gun. I wonder if it can be done by just invading his senses suddenly and deliberately: telling him something, showing him something that puts him in pain. I wonder whethe,r even if he can manage to escape that situation after some hours, days or weeks, it can be said that I violated his rights during that time.

DESPISE OF ISLAM

You despise Islam. That's fine. I also despise it. But we both do not draw cartoons of Mohammed for a Muslim audience. Their pain or rage does not help our long-term interests and values. Does it?

I don't know about you, but I like porn from time to time. I think it's fine. But I do not courier Hustler magazines to the nuns of a convent. The horror/pain/rage of the nuns would not help me in any way, neither I conceive a man who can say that such an act helped him to obtain or keep his values.

Your continued life is not a deliberate infliction of pain to Muslims. My ocassional enjoyment of pornograhpy is not a deliberate infliction of pain to nuns. We do not inflict pain by existing but by acting, by trespassing other's vital space without their permission and stimulating its nervous system in a way we know will deviate them from their pursuit of values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we should first define if there is such a thing as psychological violence, and then, if it exists, wonder if there is such a thing as psychological coercion.
"'Violence' names a particular form of force, force that is swift, intense, rough, and/or accompanied by fury."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

" It goes to the damage made to his values" Bingo your entire point hinges on this statement. And how did they "damage his values"? By using physical force against Dagney.

Why physical force directed against Dagny would represent any pain to John?

It is Dagny's body, not John's body.

Dagny's body is not John's property.

John is connected only mentally to Dagny. She represents a value for him. John cannot claim any property right on any single hair or cell of Dagny's body.

If Ferris had brought a dog to the room and torture it, John Galt wouldn't have been in pain. It has nothing to do with the physical force per se. It has to do what the meaning that the person against whom the physical force is being exercised has for John Galt. What is being damaged here is a value. Isn't this psychological violence?

Edited by Hotu Matua
Link to comment
Share on other sites

" It goes to the damage made to his values" Bingo your entire point hinges on this statement. And how did they "damage his values"? By using physical force against Dagney.

Exactly my thoughts but: Picture the climax scene that gives title to the movie Silence of the Lambs. Jodie Foster is brought to tears by being persuaded voluntarily to revive a previous traumatic episode of her life - one that did not involve coertion.

It's a good example because children may be traumatized in ways that are perfectly legal if not even good and normal, like sheep-farming.

When someone is brought to tears (physical evidence) by "messing up" with someone's personal history it is psychological violence. Whether the victim is unconsciously accomplice in this kind of situation is up for debate, but if the victim has no choice then its coercion.

Why physical force directed against Dagny would represent any pain to John?

It is Dagny's body, not John's body.

Dagny's body is not John's property.

John is connected only mentally to Dagny. She represents a value for him. John cannot claim any property right on any single hair or cell of Dagny's body.

If Ferris had brought a dog to the room and torture it, John Galt wouldn't have been in pain. It has nothing to do with the physical force per se. It has to do what the meaning that the person against whom the physical force is being exercised has for John Galt. What is being damaged here is a value. Isn't this psychological violence?

Are you ***** serious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole thread reminds me of all the times Ive heard people say "Its not your job to make peoples minds up for them". Or, "Your trying to trick me into becoming an atheist".As if any of those things are possible! :) Does one who is persuading another that god does not exist threaten the persons values? The loss of my religion caused me great pain when it happened. It was the most beautiful thing that had ever happened to me, until the day I decided to read PHNI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole thread reminds me of all the times Ive heard people say "Its not your job to make peoples minds up for them". Or, "Your trying to trick me into becoming an atheist".As if any of those things are possible! :D Does one who is persuading another that god does not exist threaten the persons values? The loss of my religion caused me great pain when it happened. It was the most beautiful thing that had ever happened to me, until the day I decided to read PHNI.

How did you "get" your religion. I'm sorry I don't understand many of you, I don't understand it when people refer to losing their religion but never talk about how they first acquired it.

I'm from a very urban area and for the first 20 years of my life I've only met undeclared atheists and liberals in general, only maybe our grandmothers' were kind of appendices of theism and - what a good example - we didn't want to nor would dare disturb them by declaring that tradition is a whole bunch of BS, what would be the point in hurting them psychologically? By we I mean myself and all my friends and every classmate I've ever spoken to, except one who, despite never going to temple nor keeping any tradition, nor having religious parents, still clarified to me emphatically when we were around 11 "but none of that means I don't believe in the one god". It was truly one of the most shocking instances of my childhood.

So what does it mean to be "born into" a religion, how does that happen, do you people have any recollection as of the brainwashing process? and isn't that a perfect example of Psychological Coercion - isn't that what Dawkins meant by Child Abuse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you "get" your religion. I'm sorry I don't understand many of you, I don't understand it when people refer to losing their religion but never talk about how they first acquired it.

I'm from a very urban area and for the first 20 years of my life I've only met undeclared atheists and liberals in general, only maybe our grandmothers' were kind of appendices of theism and - what a good example - we didn't want to nor would dare disturb them by declaring that tradition is a whole bunch of BS, what would be the point in hurting them psychologically? By we I mean myself and all my friends and every classmate I've ever spoken to, except one who, despite never going to temple nor keeping any tradition, nor having religious parents, still clarified to me emphatically when we were around 11 "but none of that means I don't believe in the one god". It was truly one of the most shocking instances of my childhood.

So what does it mean to be "born into" a religion, how does that happen, do you people have any recollection as of the brainwashing process? and isn't that a perfect example of Psychological Coercion - isn't that what Dawkins meant by Child Abuse?

Well I didnt say I was "born into" anything and your question seems a bit of an aside. I do not consider "brainwashing" to be a valid concept. The answerr to your question is :

"As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation—or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind’s wings should have grown."

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it is fair to say that, while physical violence is always involved at some point in all cases of psychological violence, psychological violence as a sort of direct violence excercised by A on B exists.

And now let's see if psychological violence can also become phsychological coercion.

Kidnapping provides a good example.

Kidnapping is a kind of physical violence which can only achieve its ends through psychological violence against a third party.

If a criminal kidnaps my girlfriend and tells me "You give me half million dollars or your girlfriend dies", the kidnappers are trying to get hold of my money (my property) by means of harming one of my values (what this girlfrend represents to me). The kidnapper knows that I will suffer mentally, even if none of my hairs and no property of mine is being touched or held. They know that it is my mental suffering what will make me look for a way to sell my house and pay the ransom, or risk my life going to rescue her.

But let's suppose that the criminals blew it and kidnapped the wrong girl. Let's suppose they happen to have kidnapped a girl who is just my classmate. A classmate with whom I share no important values, and for whom I am FAR from feeling love. Things now would take a totally different course. I would not be in pain, just slightly distressed or sad. I won't try to rescue her and risk my life, and I won't ask for loans, sell my house to pay half a million bucks. I will just call the police and let them do their job. If the criminals are caught, fine. It they are not and the girl is killed, too bad, but so be it. Why? Because I wouldn't be experiencing pain.

The kidnappers will have harmed the girl, but they won't have harmed my mind. The criminals will have failed, because they were not able to produce me enough mental pain, enough psychological coercion.

The physical coercion against the girl, in this second case, was not accompanied by psychological coercion against me ( as she didn't represent a high value to me ) and failed to produced the intended result.

Edited by Hotu Matua
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One day I was flying with a friend on a plane full of Catholic teenagers (perhaps attending a sort of convention for Catholic Youth or something like that).

A movie started to be projected on big screens on the plane (not the personal size ones, but those that everyone can see from their seats).

The movie (a Spanish one titled "The Lovers of the Arctic Circle", or something like that) was interesting, but included nudes and soft sex scenes that elicited a reaction from the priest that was acting as the leader of the group of teenagers.

He asked to talk to the pilot. After some minutes arguing with him, the priest got his approval, took the microphone used by the stewards and announced that, given the fact that the film was immoral since the perspective of the majority of the passengers, the captain had accepted to change it.

I remember my friend and I didn't like the idea, as the movie was reasonably good, but we had to accept the rule of the majority.

That brings me the question

If the captain had not accepted to change the film, would the projection of the movie be a case of psychological violence?

People could not jump off the plane. They could have closed their eyes for the whole duration of the movie, but this was clearly impractical and would have prevented them to read or do other activities that require to keep your eyes open.

These teenagers had not been forced to enter the plane. This was not a case of kidnapping.

Simply put, their freedom to escape was limited by the nature of the situation itself. So, there was no physical violence exerted here.

And if you accept that psychological violence exists, then we could as well imagine a situation in which, withouth physical coercion involved (just physical restriction imposed by the circumstances), psychological coercion exists.

What about that?

Edited by Hotu Matua
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if you accept that psychological violence exists, then we could as well imagine a situation in which, withouth physical coercion involved (just physical restriction imposed by the circumstances), psychological coercion exists.

What about that?

There is no such thing as psychological violence and thus no psychological coercion. People retain the ability to choose how they will react to a given mental event because they can exercise direct control over their mental processes and the effects of those processes. We cannot exercise *direct* control over our physical circumstances in all cases, which is why physical coercion is possible and evil.

If the captain had chosen to show the film, no one would have been violated. (It would probably have been a poor choice of policy, though.) If a given person *feels* that they don't want to be exposed to certain images, it is THEIR responsibility to make sure their environment is free of those images, NOT the responsibility of everyone else on the planet. Did they check beforehand to see what the in-flight movie would be? On the other hand, the only way to "protect" these people would be to forbid anyone from taking certain actions, and the only way to forbid is to impose fines or prison sentences which involve real physical coercion.

The inevitable result of recognizing any kind of "psychological" coercion is the imposition of real PHYSICAL coercion on all or some of the population. People complaining about psychological violence are always, ALWAYS bent on seeing some sort of physical control of other people instituted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This last tangent brought to mind flashers - people exposing their genitalia to others. Since there's no force involved, should this not be a crime?

My gut reaction is, "No. Especially if she's hot." But, joke aside, the most extreme example I can think of would be someone having sex on a pre-school playground during recess. Given children don't have total control over their mental processes and the effects of those processes, how would objective law handle this situation. Certainly, on private property, the preschool owner has the right to have the lovers arrested and charged with trespassing, but, in the words of Mr. Krabs, "The deed is done." Have the children not been assaulted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as psychological violence and thus no psychological coercion. People retain the ability to choose how they will react to a given mental event because they can exercise direct control over their mental processes and the effects of those processes. We cannot exercise *direct* control over our physical circumstances in all cases, which is why physical coercion is possible and evil.

At first I was inclined to agree but it doesn't take into account the mentally ill or small children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Grames and JMeganSnow.

I understand from what you are saying that it is not possible to objectively demostrate that A is making B experience mentally something against its will, without physical coercion involved.

And that is why in the case of kidnapping my daughter, the kidnappers should be prosecuted and punished not because the pain I felt for my daughter but because they violated the rights of a human being, who happened to be my daugther but could have been any other child in the world. I cannot sue them for the pain they inflicted to me (in the end of the day the criminals had no way to know what I would actually experience) but for the pain they inflicted to her.

In the same way, I would not violate any right if, flying on a plane full of Muslims going to Mecca for pilgrimage, I stand up and shout an insult against Islam and get back to my seat. I have no way to know what mental experiences will take place in my audience's mind. It will still be an stupid thing to do, since chances are that I am not placing myself closer to the achivement or maintenance of any value (indeed, I am placing myself closer to the angry reaction of a crowd of believers).

I think I have grasped the concept.

Thanks a lot for your help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

How then would objective law handle the scenario I described? Has no crime been committed, apart from the private property breach? What if the couple were having sex on the road outside the school? Assuming they've paid the road owner to use the road, they're not trespassing.

I disagree with the 'mental control theory' because it is not objective. Who is the authority to say who is in control and who is not?

I think what's being argued there is only the individual can control what they think about any situation. Certainly that's a function of our nature as rational beings. Isn't that objective?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...