• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Force and duress

Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
72,120
Reaction score
58,850
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
One of the common assumptions that I see on this forum is that the role of duress plays little or no role in the concept of force. The idea of force is often restricted to conscious action and not environmental factors.

However I want to ask this question. If one has a choice to take a job that has a high probability of injury or other harm or starve. (Hypothetical third world situation) can one be considered to be forced to take that job?

My answer is yes, because one has no other choice that won't result in immediate harm. This is effectively the same level of duress one would face if they had a gun pointed at them.

Further expanding the point. Force is not a binary concept. For example I am forced to have regular intake of water or else I will die. It is a condition of life but I am forced to none the less as death is death and whether I am shot or I dehydrate, the results are the same. Alternatively, if I have only a choice of being in a situation where the best choice will put me in a situation, whether it is environmental or the actions of another causing it. If I get injured, it was force that caused it.

From here we can make a whole new set of rational choices regarding force. Our society and environment is full of force and likely always will be as only as deity would truly be free. But what we can do is choose to minimize force as much as possible and with compassion.

Ultimately this boils down to a political choice. I won't go into that, but the notion that force can only be the result of violence or its threat is silly. We are subject to force as a condition of staying alive and there is no such thing as perfect freedom or liberty because we must all eat, breathe, and drink which requires resources.

So the next time someone tells you that your view initiates force. Admit to it if it does, then point out that the force initiated is less than the force someone may be subject to under other circumstances and that this is something proponants of natural rights tend to leave a huge gap in their philosophy. If they want to bludgeon you with a flawed argument, then let them make a fool of themselves
 
tacomancer said:
Admit to it if it does, then point out that the force initiated is less than the force someone may be subject to under other circumstances and that this is something proponants of natural rights tend to leave a huge gap in their philosophy. If they want to bludgeon you with a flawed argument, then let them make a fool of themselves
Click to expand...

There are different notions of freedom at work here. There are always constraints on our freedom - our ability to act how we want. We never have the ability to do literally anything we want. Because we are part of an objective reality we can only act in those ways that are consistent with that objective reality. I am not free to be weightless and fly into the clouds if I want. I am bound by gravity and the physics of our world.

Because it's literally impossible to be free in such a way, no one talks about having freedom in that sense of the word. Instead, we talk about freedom as being free to do what you wish to the extent that physical reality allows without the interference of another moral agent (person). That kind of freedom is possible and that's the kind of freedom we are said to hold a natural right to.
 
the_recruit said:
There are different notions of freedom at work here. There are always constraints on our freedom - our ability to act how we want. We never have the ability to do literally anything we want. Because we are part of an objective reality we can only act in those ways that are consistent with that objective reality. I am not free to be weightless and fly into the clouds if I want. I am bound by gravity and the physics of our world.

Because it's literally impossible to be free in such a way, no one talks about having freedom in that sense of the word. Instead, we talk about freedom as being free to do what you wish to the extent that physical reality allows without the interference of another moral agent (person). That kind of freedom is possible and that's the kind of freedom we are said to hold a natural right to.
Click to expand...

The problem with that approach is while I agree that people are not god. It still ignores a whole set of freedoms that affect our quality of life and ability to make choices. The perspect is unintentionally self limiting and fails to include everything that falls within the purview of what affects a person's life.

We can't get to total freedom, but we can try to get as close as technologically possible at any given time.
 
tacomancer said:
The problem with that approach is while I agree that people are not god. It still ignores a whole set of freedoms that affect our quality of life and ability to make choices. The perspect is unintentionally self limiting and fails to include everything that falls within the purview of what affects a person's life.
Click to expand...

Nobody's ignoring it. Nobody's ignoring the fact that you can't make yourself weightless and fly into the clouds on a whim. No one denies this.

We are recognizing a meaningful difference between being constrained in such a way (an unavoidable consequence of objective reality) with being constrained in a different way (someone holding a gun to your head).
 
the_recruit said:
Nobody's ignoring it. Nobody's ignoring the fact that you can't make yourself weightless and fly into the clouds on a whim. No one denies this.

We are recognizing a meaningful difference between being constrained in such a way (an unavoidable consequence of objective reality) with being constrained in a different way (someone holding a gun to your head).
Click to expand...

constrained is constrained. If I can't do something, then I cannot do it. The why is only important if I want to do something to change my circumstance. Objectively, its a meaningless qualifier. Subjectively, I may decide the price I have to pay or make others pay isn't worth the end goal.
 
tacomancer said:
constrained is constrained. If I can't do something, then I cannot do it. The why is only important if I want to do something to change my circumstance. Objectively, its a meaningless qualifier. Subjectively, I may decide the price I have to pay or make others pay isn't worth the end goal.
Click to expand...

No it's not meaningless. It's objectively meaningful and I just explained the meaning of the difference to you. In Case A you're being constrained by the nature of objective reality and in Case B you're being constrained by another person. That's the meaning.

Not only is the distinction meaningful, it's also practical and consequential. The person doesn't have to hold a gun to your head. Or, put differently, reality needn't be the case that you have a gun to your head. Whereas, you can't do anything about the fact that gravity exists and that you are not weightless. You can't "sanction" gravity for doing something you don't like.
 
the_recruit said:
No it's not meaningless. It's objectively meaningful and I just explained the meaning of the difference to you. In Case A you're being constrained by the nature of objective reality and in Case B you're being constrained by another person. That's the meaning.

Not only is the distinction meaningful, it's also practical and consequential. The person doesn't have to hold a gun to your head. Or, put differently, reality needn't be the case that you have a gun to your head. Whereas, you can't do anything about the fact that gravity exists and that you are not weightless. You can't "sanction" gravity for doing something you don't like.
Click to expand...
I disagree, especially given that people are part of nature. There is no meaningful difference. Can't is can't.
 
tacomancer said:
I disagree, especially given that people are part of nature. There is no meaningful difference. Can't is can't.
Click to expand...

BS. You don't actually believe that people don't make choices. If I were to punch you in the face you wouldn't say "oh, you had no choice". :roll:
 
the_recruit said:
BS. You don't actually believe that people don't make choices. If I were to punch you in the face you wouldn't say "oh, you had no choice". :roll:
Click to expand...

Determinism Vs Freewill. Do we truly have a choice?

Paul
 
the_recruit said:
BS. You don't actually believe that people don't make choices. If I were to punch you in the face you wouldn't say "oh, you had no choice". :roll:
Click to expand...

Of course I believe people make choices. That has nothing to do with my point

The source of the constraint does not matter from a constraint perspective is my argument.
 
tacomancer said:
One of the common assumptions that I see on this forum is that the role of duress plays little or no role in the concept of force. The idea of force is often restricted to conscious action and not environmental factors.

However I want to ask this question. If one has a choice to take a job that has a high probability of injury or other harm or starve. (Hypothetical third world situation) can one be considered to be forced to take that job?

My answer is yes, because one has no other choice that won't result in immediate harm. This is effectively the same level of duress one would face if they had a gun pointed at them.

Further expanding the point. Force is not a binary concept. For example I am forced to have regular intake of water or else I will die. It is a condition of life but I am forced to none the less as death is death and whether I am shot or I dehydrate, the results are the same. Alternatively, if I have only a choice of being in a situation where the best choice will put me in a situation, whether it is environmental or the actions of another causing it. If I get injured, it was force that caused it.

From here we can make a whole new set of rational choices regarding force. Our society and environment is full of force and likely always will be as only as deity would truly be free. But what we can do is choose to minimize force as much as possible and with compassion.
Click to expand...

How would society minimize force with compassion? Not require people to do dangerous jobs, as in your example? Perhaps a safety net never allowing for the possibility of starvation regardless of the individual's actions? As apart of nature, each of us will always face such a possibility without interference. Then again, without the incentive to work, most people wouldn't. The incentive is not only survival but profit/greed.

tacomancer said:
Ultimately this boils down to a political choice. I won't go into that, but the notion that force can only be the result of violence or its threat is silly. We are subject to force as a condition of staying alive and there is no such thing as perfect freedom or liberty because we must all eat, breathe, and drink which requires resources.

So the next time someone tells you that your view initiates force. Admit to it if it does, then point out that the force initiated is less than the force someone may be subject to under other circumstances and that this is something proponants of natural rights tend to leave a huge gap in their philosophy. If they want to bludgeon you with a flawed argument, then let them make a fool of themselves
Click to expand...

I would say that the process of starvation is violent and cruel.
 
tacomancer said:
Of course I believe people make choices. That has nothing to do with my point

The source of the constraint does not matter from a constraint perspective is my argument.
Click to expand...

But nobody denies that the physical constraints of reality aren't important. Your point seems to be that nobody acknowledges this; I think everybody acknowledges this.

We just don't spend a lot of time talking about how restrictive gravity is because the existence of gravity isn't within our ability to choose. We can choose whether to put a gun to someone's head.
 
the_recruit said:
This argument is old hat. Yes. In fact, moral responsibility requires causal determinism. See compatibilism.
Click to expand...

Until resolved, very valid. Without looking at your link Peter Strawson is the authority on this. Compatibilism is just (at present) an alternative theory, nothing more, nothing less. In fact, what you should of said is neuroscience is where 'its' happening, rather than philosophy.

Paul
 
the_recruit said:
But nobody denies that the physical constraints of reality aren't important. Your point seems to be that nobody acknowledges this; I think everybody acknowledges this.

We just don't spend a lot of time talking about how restrictive gravity is because the existence of gravity isn't within our ability to choose. We can choose whether to put a gun to someone's head.
Click to expand...

One cannot do something about gravity (with our current technology), sure, I already made this point.

However, one can do something about the environment they can affect or attempt to. For example if one does not like a law, one can try to do something to change it. If one does not like available options for a service, one can attempt to court a new business, enact a regulation or law, or other things.

However, until something happens, like a new regulation, the constraint is there and it limits your freedom.
 
tacomancer said:
One of the common assumptions that I see on this forum is that the role of duress plays little or no role in the concept of force. The idea of force is often restricted to conscious action and not environmental factors.

However I want to ask this question. If one has a choice to take a job that has a high probability of injury or other harm or starve. (Hypothetical third world situation) can one be considered to be forced to take that job?

My answer is yes, because one has no other choice that won't result in immediate harm. This is effectively the same level of duress one would face if they had a gun pointed at them.

Further expanding the point. Force is not a binary concept. For example I am forced to have regular intake of water or else I will die. It is a condition of life but I am forced to none the less as death is death and whether I am shot or I dehydrate, the results are the same. Alternatively, if I have only a choice of being in a situation where the best choice will put me in a situation, whether it is environmental or the actions of another causing it. If I get injured, it was force that caused it.

From here we can make a whole new set of rational choices regarding force. Our society and environment is full of force and likely always will be as only as deity would truly be free. But what we can do is choose to minimize force as much as possible and with compassion.

Ultimately this boils down to a political choice. I won't go into that, but the notion that force can only be the result of violence or its threat is silly. We are subject to force as a condition of staying alive and there is no such thing as perfect freedom or liberty because we must all eat, breathe, and drink which requires resources.

So the next time someone tells you that your view initiates force. Admit to it if it does, then point out that the force initiated is less than the force someone may be subject to under other circumstances and that this is something proponants of natural rights tend to leave a huge gap in their philosophy. If they want to bludgeon you with a flawed argument, then let them make a fool of themselves
Click to expand...

What I hear you saying is that when the circumstances in a persons life create obstacles that are not of there making, were unavoidable and that limit their options and sometimes even force their hand they are extended an element of compassion typically provided limitations that are of a more physical nature. For instance, if a man with no legs can't run the marathon people are compassionate and we alter our expectations or provide him the tools necessary to run the race. If someone with no education, born to poverty etc can not despite their best efforts find a job that adequately provides them sustenance so they must seek out public assistance to survive that element of compassion does not exit for them but, using your concept of duress, should exist and for the same reasons we feel it for the legless runner?
 
opendebate said:
What I hear you saying is that when the circumstances in a persons life create obstacles that are not of there making, were unavoidable and that limit their options and sometimes even force their hand they are extended an element of compassion typically provided limitations that are of a more physical nature. For instance, if a man with no legs can't run the marathon people are compassionate and we alter our expectations or provide him the tools necessary to run the race. If someone with no education, born to poverty etc can not despite their best efforts find a job that adequately provides them sustenance so they must seek out public assistance to survive that element of compassion does not exit for them but, using your concept of duress, should exist and for the same reasons we feel it for the legless runner?
Click to expand...

basically yes. The uneducated person cannot, until their circumstances change (perhaps they get an opportunity to go to college or gain appropriate job experience), become an engineer. This is a constraint and a form of duress if said person desires to be an engineer. This is largely due to passive societal expectation (people typically expect engineers to be college educated)

I however, do not see any point in making a distinction between this form of constraint and an educated person who cannot do it because of perhaps some new law that regulates engineering credentials (that this person does not possess) even if said person could make a safe bridge or whatever. (lets say the new regulation is requires some sort of environmental impact knowledge).

Both are external constraints, the source is not important.
 
Last edited:
tacomancer said:
basically yes. The uneducated person cannot, until their circumstances change (perhaps they get an opportunity to go to college or gain appropriate job experience), become an engineer. This is a constraint and a form of duress if said person desires to be an engineer.
Click to expand...

I see this as a fundamental difference between conservative and progressive thinking.
 
opendebate said:
I see this as a fundamental difference between conservative and progressive thinking.
Click to expand...

I agree. And my purpose in the OP was to fill in the gaps that the typical usage of the word force I see here leaves out and make the terminology more complete and accurate.
 
gunner said:
Until resolved, very valid.
Click to expand...

I think it is resolved. Whether everyone agrees is irrelevant. But the philosophy community as a whole does lean strongly towards compatibilism, for whatever that's worth.

gunner said:
Without looking at your link Peter Strawson is the authority on this.
Click to expand...

I don't accept Peter Strawson as the authority on anything. And I'm not even aware of any contributions he made to the debate of free will.

gunner said:
Compatibilism is just (at present) an alternative theory, nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

Not all theories are equal. Some are correct (describe reality as it is) and some are not.

gunner said:
In fact, what you should of said is neuroscience is where 'its' happening, rather than philosophy.
Click to expand...

Why should I have said that? That's certainly not what I meant. I don't agree that neuroscience can answer questions as to whether moral responsibility and free will as defined by compatibilists exist. That's a question for philosophy.
 
tacomancer said:
I agree. And my purpose in the OP was to fill in the gaps that the typical usage of the word force I see here leaves out and make the terminology more complete and accurate.
Click to expand...

I could see some arguing that even a choice made under duress is a choice and if you chose life over death you are responsible for the outcome of that choice regardless of whether or not it was made under duress because the implication of allowing otherwise is that someone else is responsible for compensating for your disadvantage and its outcomes.
 
the_recruit said:
I think it is resolved. Whether everyone agrees is irrelevant. But the philosophy community as a whole does lean strongly towards compatibilism, for whatever that's worth.
Click to expand...

What a bunch of philosophers think is meaningless. I am more interested in the truth and philosophy is as much subject to fads as any discipline.

As far as science making strides into morality. I think the explanation has already been obtained. Morality is just preprogrammed social instinct.
 
tacomancer said:
basically yes. The uneducated person cannot, until their circumstances change (perhaps they get an opportunity to go to college or gain appropriate job experience), become an engineer. This is a constraint and a form of duress if said person desires to be an engineer. This is largely due to passive societal expectation (people typically expect engineers to be college educated)

I however, do not see any point in making a distinction between this form of constraint and an educated person who cannot do it because of perhaps some new law that regulates engineering credentials (that this person does not possess) even if said person could make a safe bridge or whatever. (lets say the new regulation is requires some sort of environmental impact knowledge).

Both are external constraints, the source is not important.
Click to expand...

Ah, but it is important - because we can easily change the law that prohibits it. But we can't easily provide everyone who wants to be an engineer the education and training to do so (it costs money, there might not be enough engineering professors to teach everyone, not everyone who wants to be an engineer might have the ability to understand the maths involved, etc). This example is a little ambiguous because, arguably, we do have some ability to provide access to education and training to those who want it. So, in some ways not providing that access is as much of a choice as

A better example of the difference might be a law that prohibits rock climbing. Some people just don't have the ability to rock climb. Maybe they're too old and frail, maybe they're handicapped, maybe they're missing an arm. It's meaningful to make a distinction between people that are prevented from engaging in rock-climbing because of physical circumstances versus people that are prevented from engaging in rock-climbing because of a law. The distinction is important because we can easily change the rock-climbing law (and thereby allow more people to be able to have the enjoyable experience of rock-climbing) but we can't easily make everybody physically capable of rock-climbing. That's why the distinction is important, it's an issue of what is within our ability to choose.
 
the_recruit said:
Ah, but it is important - because we can easily change the law that prohibits it. But we can't easily provide everyone who wants to be an engineer the education and training to do so (it costs money, there might not be enough engineering professors to teach everyone, not everyone who wants to be an engineer might have the ability to understand the maths involved, etc). This example is a little ambiguous because, arguably, we do have some ability to provide access to education and training to those who want it. So, in some ways not providing that access is as much of a choice as
Click to expand...

But therein lies the societal problem. Yes we can provide education assistance and then people come out of the woodwork going taxes are force because gubmint, yadda yadda yadda. So fine, then I will expand the definition of force to include all levels of force and not simply the ones the yadda yadda yadda people are concerned with so we can get a broader picture of moral needs and truths. This is the point of the thread.

the_recruit said:
A better example of the difference might be a law that prohibits rock climbing. Some people just don't have the ability to rock climb. Maybe they're too old and frail, maybe they're handicapped, maybe they're missing an arm. It's meaningful to make a distinction between people that are prevented from engaging in rock-climbing because of physical circumstances versus people that are prevented from engaging in rock-climbing because of a law. The distinction is important because we can easily change the rock-climbing law (and thereby allow more people to be able to have the enjoyable experience of rock-climbing) but we can't easily make everybody physically capable of rock-climbing. That's why the distinction is important, it's an issue of what is within our ability to choose.
Click to expand...

the distinction is only important for practical purposes in what good we can feasibly do. Morally, I see no point in making a distinction. The person is harmed by not being able to rock climb either way.
 
tacomancer said:
As far as science making strides into morality.
Click to expand...

Science hasn't made any strides into the nature of morality. The is-ought problem is a big ****ing problem.

tacomancer said:
I think the explanation has already been obtained. Morality is just preprogrammed social instinct.
Click to expand...

Science can, and indeed has, explain how it is that animals evolved to have a sense of morality. But science can make no claim as to whether morality exists, whether moral statements are true or false. Science simply has no way of evaluating ought-statements. You are free to reject morality and only acknowledge what science has a means to evaluate, but in doing so you are making a philosophical judgement (that moral statements are false, or that moral statements aren't truth-apt, etc) whether you like it or not. In fact, holding any view of the world at all requires you to make certain philosophical assumptions whether you like it or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom