I just realised I left out the most important sentence of the whole thing:
For a behaviour to be non-manipulative it has to attempt to influence people based on reason. However, reason produces no answers ("no ought from is" etc) and therefore non-manipulation isn't real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RT Wolf  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. |
Some really interesting points, but these are the ones that caught my attention because they are so relevant. You're right that I'm being entirely relativistic, and haven't justified that position at all here.
Point 3 about effectiveness is excellent! The moment something reaches a certain degree of efficiency it is declared manipulative, whereas if something is innefficient it's not. Logically this makes no sense, of course.
Point 4 about treating other people as means to ends is the real key of the whole thing isn't it?
My argument (actually not mine, Alasdair MacIntyre's) is that because there is no rational basis for anything, and that we all affect each other whether we like it or not, what we are doing can neither be said to be manipulative or non-manipulative. It just IS. Whether we are conscious of the effect we have is irrelevant. Whether we are honest about our intentions is also irrelevant.