Authors
Scott Anderson
University of British Columbia
Abstract
This essay provides a positive account of coercion that avoids significant difficulties that have confronted most other recent accounts. It enters this territory by noting a dispute over whether coercion has to manipulate the will of the coercee, or whether direct force inhibiting action (such as manhandling or imprisoning) is itself coercive. Though this dispute may at first seem a mere matter of taxonomic categorization, I argue that this dispute reflects an important divergence in thought about the nature of coercion. Though it has rarely been noted, there are two significantly different ways of theorizing coercion found in recent writing on coercion. One focuses on the ability of the coercer to inhibit actions by the coercee through techniques such as force, violence, and like powers, or threats based in such powers. The other approach restricts coercion to cases where coercion manipulates the will of the coercee, though widens it to include any sort of threat that puts pressure on the coercee's will and alters the coercee's intentional choice of action. The former, enforcement approach used to be widely assumed by many political theorists who discussed the place of coercion in law and politics, though it has been largely supplanted by the latter, pressure approach. I show that these approaches are indeed quite distinct, and argue that the enforcement approach is in several ways superior to and more fundamental than the pressure approach for recognizing and understanding coercion in ethics and political and legal philosophy. I also consider and respond to a number of objections to the enforcement approach, showing that it can deal with some puzzle cases such as bluffs, blackmail, inefficacious threats, oblique threats, and economic coercion.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 59,864
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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Coercion and Moral Blameworthiness.Lloyd Fields - 2001 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 15 (1):135-151.
Bargaining Advantages and Coercion in the Market.Joan McGregor - 1988 - Philosophy Research Archives 14:23-50.
Are Coerced Agreements Involuntary?Michael Philips - 1984 - Law and Philosophy 3 (1):133 - 145.
Rationally Justifying Political Coercion.Russell Hardin - 1990 - Journal of Philosophical Research 15:79-91.
Why Coercion is Wrong When It’s Wrong.Benjamin Sachs - 2013 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91 (1):63 - 82.
Threats and Coercion.Martin Gunderson - 1979 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 9 (2):247 - 259.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
82 ( #126,312 of 2,433,133 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #213,666 of 2,433,133 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes