Quote:
Originally Posted by Plato  Essentially, it's a well accepted fact that there is no objective right or wrong; just subjective opinions and inclinations one way or another. |
Yes, it is an objectively accepted fact that there is no objective right or wrong.
You've made an interesting attempt to dissolve this distinction, however I disagree with it. This is an issue that I've been wrestling with so lemme throw in my cent and half:
When faced with a question, I attempt to figure out how things current are and then figure out if there's a better way, rather than trying to build a certain argument. Largely this involves introspection, analysis of other people's behaviour, attempts to distill principles and then choose among the alternatives.
I haven't made much headway but here are some factors that influence whether something is considered valid influence or manipulation:
1. Lack of choice or autonomy. People really don't like feeling like they don't have a choice or are being controlled. Often, things that are subconscious or beyond conscious control are called manipulation. So are situations in which an artificial dilemma is created and someone takes advantage of it (blackmail for example).
2. Categorically manipulative things, regardless of effectiveness. Like getting a puppy just to pick up women, you don't acutally care about the puppy.
3. Effectiveness. If something is 95% effective in working a lot of people, we tend to think of this as manipulative, for some reason, probably due to number 1.
4. Treating others as means to ends rather than ends in themselves. Using people (and animals), especially in a way that's worse off for them.
Anything else that might influence whether something is called manipulative versus influence?
Plato, I do want to note one thing about your argument: you appear to be using
radical moral relativism (I prefer
moral pluralism over complete relativism) to justify actions being merely judged as manipulative and "bad". I agree there are no "objective" right or wrongs, because nothing we do has meaning "objectively". Objectively being used meaning a dispassionate third party observer, perhaps a rock. A rock doesn't give a crap about much humans do. Human beings make meanings out of everything, there are no meanings "out there".
So, since right or wrong is only relevant to us human beings, I feel its important to listen to what other human beings are saying about what's "good" behaviour, even if you decide to go against it, rather than assuming they're all wrong because there's no objective right or wrong. Know what I mean?