The ethics of manipulation appear to be consistently in favour of freedom, but is this right?

People indoctrinate others through "education": they teach people what is morally right and wrong - is this not manipulation?

People bait others into religion: parents force children, friends push each other - are religious fanatics not manipulated?

People believe the law is righteous; "the law is good" is a mantra people are made to believe, the law must be abided by otherwise the outlaw become an outcast - is indirect FOMO not manipulation?

But as soon as someone is openly coerced into doing something - suddenly it is manipulation. but this only works if we are a blank slate; this only works if we genuinely are born tabula rasa.

Is it nature or nurture?

If nature, then manipulation is just a nudge towards unlocked potential

If nurture, then where does original influence come from?

we must have an objective knowledge - manipulation is just a way of dragging it out

----------

Edit: 24th Feb 2021

Case study: Humans are impressionable and easily manipulated. A murderer believes that killing others is morally right. Science shows this is due to brain chemistry; if they have surgery, their brain chemistry can be altered and they will find murder repulsive. Further evidence shows that the murderer won't agree to the operation because their brain tells them that they enjoy killing. Should the murderer be forced to have surgery even if they don't want it? Is it unethical to forcibly manipulate the brain?

What if we could forcibly manipulate the brains of people with phobias? With consent, would the surgery still be ethical?

----------

Edit: 26th Feb 2021

Please see chapter Free Will.

We are all manipulated - preprogrammed - yet what is ethical is idiosyncratic. This may pose a problem if one believes in dichotomies (please see chapter Dichotomies), yet since this illusion is borne out of ignorance, there isn't actually a problem at all. We must act spontaneously if we are to uncover our - humanity's - objective nature.

----------

Edit: 22nd Mar 2021

One of the greatest (or convenient) traits of humanity is the ability to adapt, conform and habitualise. Therefore, what we experience when we are younger becomes the norm and is what is considered to be proper, right and acceptable. The way we are educated is the way we believe is the best way to be educated.

Stockholm syndrome is a good indicator of this trait. Even though the victim is abused, they have already habituated to it. When a society is therefore subjected to physical or mental abuse, they habitutate and take it as the best way of life. This is how slavery evolves and why later generation of slaves are unable to escape the lifestyle with the exception of outside influence which hold different norms which they believe to be the best way of life; or an individual from within the slave culture has the imagination to believe otherwise and revolt.

The only thing we should learn is the question everything we know.

Hence, the objectively best (or at least I believe it to be, although I could have already conformed to my own societies standards) way of education / manipulation is the cultivation of thinking otherwise. Creativity is the ultimate salvation which leads to an agent of change or vice versa.

Creativity is the death of stagnation.

Creativity is the embodiment of nature.

Creativity is the lifeblood of evolution. 

----------

Edit: 25th Mar 2021

Nature vs. Nurture is the current dichotomy many scientists face, but does it really matter? The great trait about humans is that they are malleable – particularly when they are young. An undeniable trait that all creatures face, however, is survival of the fittest. There is therefore nothing wrong with manipulation: it is merely "educating" sheeple. Those who are 'superior' – the ones who fail to conform – are those who are the fittest. Manipulation is thus a necessary filter to separate people from Sheeple.

This may seem elitist, however, those who are too ignorant to understand – truly discover for themselves and not simply by being told (i.e. Firefox and Chrome users in ) – live an unassuming life. They are blissfully ignorant, and as long as they are happy / content / experience 幸福 (for lack of better wording) then why would they fight being manipulated / "educated" in a certain way.

On the other hand, those who fail to conform – the criminals, psychopaths, rebels etc. – have the qualifications to reform society. They in effect become the modifiers of what is constituted as "education" and have the right to improve upon it. They are the ones such as Akane Tsunemori (Psycho Pass) and Winston Smith (1984). They are the ones who are not content with living as Sheeple and hence improving upon society is not only their responsibility but the only way that they will feel that they are actually 'living'.

The sole problem, therefore, is guaranteeing the rights of the non-conformists. How can it be assured that those in charge of society do not fall into corruption? That, I currently do not know. However, I am certain that in order to pursue a Utopia, manipulation is the best tool. In that effect, sheeple are happy to live blissfully ignorant lives and the non-conformists are happy to smooth out the wrinkles in their societal structure. 

Reference: Scott Westerfield "Uglies Series"

I.e. Manipulation is ethically good.

----------

Edit: 26th Mar 2021

Lee Poor (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-you-shouldnt-always-focus-majority-lee-poor) argues that the majority is often merely the precipitation of Sheeple 'group think', where mindless conformity leads to snowballing misrepresentation of what the majority need (instead of want). We should then instead focus on the fringe groups; those that have enough conviction to cast their vote against the majority - the non-conformists.

----------

Edit: 30th Mar 2021

Logic vs irrationality = Nurture vs Nature.

Logic can often override (behaviorism) animalistic instinct; however, even with transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, it cannot completely overtake it.

Instinct is the gateway to a priori knowledge – those who are non-conformists and align more with nature than nurture are the key to understanding the ontological Truth. 

----------

Edit: 12th Apr 2021

Scout mindset is the key to non-conformists.

Reference: https://blog.ed.ted.com/2018/09/07/why-you-think-youre-right-even-when-youre-wrong/

----------

Edit: 15th Apr 2021

Empathy is the key to society. We all fear being powerless and therefore it is our duty to protect the weak. 

Reference: First they came...

Our weakness is what makes us human. If we were perfect then we would be God. Perhaps it is unfair that we are humans instead of Gods, however, while we are human, we cannot exist independently. 

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun (Chinese: 枪杆子里面出政权; pinyin: Qiānggǎn zi lǐmiàn chū zhèngquán) is a phrase which was coined by Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong.

Due to manipulation, everyone is malleable and it opens up the potential for redemption. Nobody is 'evil', although many unforgivable actions cannot be reversed. 

----------

Edit: May the fourth be with you 2021

Manipulation's foreground rests on the Barnum effect which conforms to the Pollyanna principle. The phenomena is a result of subjective validation and the innate desire to conform.

----------

Edit: 9th May 2021

Gaslighting is often viewed as psychological manipulation... but is it really? Is it bad to sow seeds of doubt? It's uncomfortable but is vital to our existence in questioning dogmas and the status quo. Indeed it has its consequences such as cognitive dissonance, but destabilising oneself is essential to build oneself anew.

To truly awaken, one must become Maleurous (Dragonfable).

After all, people are like geodes; you have to break them to see what they are made of.

----------

Edit: 1st September 2021

People are always changing. One person (X) hates being tortured, later develops Stockholm syndrome. Is Stockholm syndrome therefore a disorder or a new fragment of X's personality? Would it be wrong to attempt to 'cure' X's disorder? Is X even X anymore, or are they X*?

Argue that X* is to X is what a butterfly is to a caterpillar. Should one try to revert a butterfly back to a caterpillar? Even if X* wants to revert to X that is impossible because it would be the same as gluing a broken vase back together again. Scars aren't ever completely erased and they make us who we are.

Assume that the Doctor can use conditioning to 'manipulate' a person (Y) into having Stockholm syndrome of sorts, an infatuation with moral good. Is this ethically wrong if Y does not desire the Doctor's help, even if it could be guaranteed that Y* would grateful for the metamorphous post operation?

Is it wrong to give a criminal counselling? Is it wrong to talk someone out of suicide? Is it wrong to 'educate' people? Each external action leads to an irreversible change, but change is inevitable. Regardless of whether or not the caterpillar wishes to become a butterfly, the metamorphous will occur; why not then condition the caterpillar to desire the change than fear it?

People are untapped potential, figures of clay that can be moulded into anything. Nonetheless, people fear sacrifice more than they crave success and this leads to stagnation. People avoid change because they fear the unknown consequences – people assume an identity and cling to it like a sinking ship. Should this be allowed?

Should we give people the freedom to stagnate and regress? When the ship is sinking, is it wrong to push passengers into the water before all the lifeboats sail away? Is it unethical to manipulate a person to become addicted to altruism than allow them to descend into a blight to society? Or is (the perception of) freedom absolutely good?

----------

Edit: 11th November  2021

We are GODS in the chrysallis

----------

Edit: 18th November 2021

Change is nature - no matter how much we want to remain the person we are, we cannot stop change. We can, however, as Jordan Peterson puts it: choose our own goddamn sacrifice. So why not choose to be happy?

It just seems absurd that we have things such as cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism. In the case of the former, what is moral depends on what society agrees to be moral. In the case of the latter, what is moral is up to us to decide. But why should there be a divide? If morality isn't objective and is simply by convention, why not brainwash everyone into having the same moral standards? Is dogma really that wrong if people end up happy?  We can't stop ourselves from changing, so why not just choose to agree on a common morality? We may not like it right now, but just like Stockholm syndrome - our bodies will make us like it eventually.

The only foreseeable problem is that we can't agree on what morality to use. For example, some may want to choose a morality where murder is wrong, but then another might choose a morality where murder is wrong depending on certain scenarios. But if we brainwash ourselves to have a psychosomatic repulsion to murder, then won't we automatically agree with the former morality? 

At the end of the day, what is morality except a way to promote welfare? If we brainwash everyone into being good and accepting that model of good, what is the problem? Isn't it better to choose how we change rather than leave it up to chance?