Graduate studies at Western
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91 (1):63 - 82 (2013)
|Abstract||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)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Joan McGregor (1988). Bargaining Advantages and Coercion in the Market. Philosophy Research Archives 14:23-50.
Mikhail Valdman (2009). A Theory of Wrongful Exploitation. Philosophers' Imprint 9 (6):1-14.
Elinor Mason (2012). Coercion and Integrity. In Mark Timmons (ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics 2. Oxford.
Lloyd Fields (2001). Coercion and Moral Blameworthiness. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 15 (1):135-151.
Joseph Millum (forthcoming). Consent Under Pressure: The Puzzle of Third Party Coercion. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice:1-15.
Ori J. Herstein (2012). Defending the Right To Do Wrong. Law and Philosophy 31 (3):343-365.
Richard Swinburne (1976). Reply to Wallace's 'on Making Actions Morally Wrong'. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 6:551 - 552.
Jan-Willem van der Rijt (2011). Coercive Interference and Moral Judgment. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (5):549-567.
Michael Philips (1984). Are Coerced Agreements Involuntary? Law and Philosophy 3 (1):133 - 145.
Stephen Kershnar (2011). For Permitting Hazing. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (1):87-106.
Emily Largent, Christine Grady, Franklin G. Miller & Alan Wertheimer (2013). Misconceptions About Coercion and Undue Influence: Reflections on the Views of Irb Members. Bioethics 27 (9):500-507.
Jukka Varelius (2013). Voluntary Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide, and the Right to Do Wrong. HEC Forum 25 (3):1-15.
Eduardo Rivera-lópez (2006). Can There Be Full Excuses for Morally Wrong Actions? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73 (1):124–142.
Added to index2011-12-23
Total downloads28 ( #49,847 of 727,261 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 727,261 )
How can I increase my downloads?