Why Coercion is Wrong When It's Wrong

Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91 (1):63 - 82 (2013)
It is usually thought that wrongful acts of threat-involving coercion are wrong because they involve a violation of the freedom or autonomy of the targets of those acts. I argue here that this cannot possibly be right, and that in fact the wrongness of wrongful coercion has nothing at all to do with the effect such actions have on their targets. This negative thesis is supported by pointing out that what we say about the ethics of threatening (and thus the ethics of coercion) constrains what we can say about the ethics of warning and offering. Importantly, our favoured explanation of the wrongness of certain kinds of threatening should not commit us to condemning as wrong parallel cases of warning and offering. My positive project is to show how this can be done. I defend the claim that wrongful coercion is nothing more than the issuing of a conditional threat to do wrong, and that an agent's issuing of a conditional threat to do wrong is wrong because it constitutes motivation for that agent to adopt the announced intention to do wrong. The idea of explaining the wrongness of wrongful coercion in this way has gone unnoticed because we have thus far been mistaken about what a threat is. In this essay I present my moral analysis of coercion only after presenting a careful descriptive analysis of threats. On my view, it is essential to a threat that the announced intention is one that the agent does not possess before announcing it. This analysis makes it possible to elucidate the descriptive differences between threats, warnings and offers, which sets up the later project of elucidating the moral differences between them
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/00048402.2011.646280
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 16,707
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Joel Feinberg (1986). Harm to Self. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
Alan Wertheimer (1990). Coercion. Princeton University Press.

View all 16 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Lloyd Fields (2001). Coercion and Moral Blameworthiness. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 15 (1):135-151.
Jan-Willem van der Rijt (2011). Coercive Interference and Moral Judgment. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (5):549-567.
Stephen Kershnar (2011). For Permitting Hazing. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (1):87-106.
Eduardo Rivera-lópez (2006). Can There Be Full Excuses for Morally Wrong Actions? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73 (1):124–142.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

90 ( #36,775 of 1,726,249 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

51 ( #22,585 of 1,726,249 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.