Of all the ethical situations that we've discussed in class so far, I think manipulation is the hardest to define or regulate. As the comment section of the LBJ case pointed out, it's hard to say that any one action Johnson took was "wrong" in itself; voting at a certain time, for example, is strategic, not manipulative. However, in combination with other actions, it's not a stretch to say that Johnson was acting manipulatively.
It's hard to determine for me what is the difference between strategy and manipulation. One of the more commonplace places we see manipulation in is business and advertising. I grew up hearing all about advertising, because my dad works in advertising and marketing. Strategy is a key part of business. It's normal for businesses to do research to determine how to get the most people to buy their product. I think most people have some idea of when strategy becomes manipulative, but the line is incredibly blurry. For example, most people would think that putting up advertisements for yachts in an upper class neighborhood would be considered strategy, when targeting children with fast food campaigns seems more manipulative. I'm not sure exactly how to describe the difference, and I think there are a couple of factors. Part of it is that targeting rational adults is different than targeting children who are unable to fully comprehend the risks of unhealthy eating. This is just one example though, and the rule does not apply to others. Politicians who are manipulated are certainly rational adults and capable of making their own decisions. Knowland could have, at any time, re-calculated his votes and tried to get more time before the vote. All of the senators could have researched the amendment more thoroughly. And yet, Johnson's actions seem inherently wrong to me. His strategy to get more votes worked.
Another thought I had of the difference between strategy and manipulation was that perhaps the intention behind the actions are different. If a politician used the methods to pass a bill that he honestly believed was for the greater good it would be strategic, but if the actions were to benefit himself rather than the general public, it would be manipulative. This doesn't seem like it applies to all situations either, however. It did seem to me that Johnson wanted the bill to pass for selfish reasons, but it seems entirely possible for a person to act manipulatively even with the greater good in mind.
Manipulation is more dishonest than strategy by nature. Strategy uses intelligence to plan maneuvers to obtain a certain goal, but manipulation uses these tactics unfairly, in order to influence other people to act in certain ways. Somehow Johnson's actions crossed the line by being dishonest and unfair. I think his deliberate intentions are part of what makes his actions unfair, even though everyone involved was rational enough to have acted differently if they had looked at more information.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Christina, I'm also struggling a lot with clearly defining the ethical bounds of manipulation. I really like that you brought up the issue of intent as I think this is a big part of the problem with trying to distinguish the justifiable manipulation from the unjustifiable. The authors of the textbook discuss manipulation as a strategy in which the merit is determined by the ends. They write in the introduction to the manipulation section: “When your ends are the same as theirs, the manipulation is benevolent” (159).
ReplyDeleteHowever, I see the criteria of intent as a basis for judging the merit of manipulation as problematic in many respects. First of all, as we have already discussed a lot in class in connection with deception and other topics, it is very difficult to determine what the ends will be. Even if the politician's intended ends are the same as the citizens', what if his actions unintentionally lead to different ends? Is his manipulation still justified? Is there any way that he can know that the desired ends would not have been achieved without the use of manipulation?
I guess I'm a little less critical of LBJ's intentions than you are, Christina, as I do believe that there is a good chance that he wanted the bill to pass out of genuine concern for the civil rights movement and a belief that this bill, even imperfect, was an important next step in the success of the movement. However, the deliberateness of his actions bothered me as well, as did his assumption that his views that the bill needed to pass were somehow more valid--and even worth manipulating his colleagues over--than the people who had concerns about the specifics of the bill.
I think I am more critical of LBJ, perhaps unnecessarily. I read the passage as saying that his concern for the civil rights movement was questionable, and that he seemed more concerned with passing some sort of legislation than actually helping with the movement.
ReplyDeleteI agree that intention shouldn't be the only criteria for whether manipulation is unacceptable. As I said, I think it is very possible that people act manipulatively with the best of intentions, which I don't think makes it right. Intentions are a relevant part of whether an action is ethical, but I don't think it is pertinent when determining whether or not a person should face consequences for their actions. Whether or not a person has good intentions, they should be punished for their actions, or no one will learn from their actions.
The comparison between manipulation and adversting is an interesting twist, but I do see how it connects, this was a good example and hepled me look it the articles from a different angle. I also had a hard time defining manipulation in the politcal world, but was able to see it in these cases because I knew what to expect, basically from things I have learned in class.
ReplyDeleteI also struggle with when is manipulation acceptable? I'm not even sure if I think manipulation is ever justified. LBJ used it to ger his name associated with a civil rights act, because of his hopes to become President. The "Killer D's" in Texas used it to keep control that they had gained from the previous gerrymandering.