Free Thought Manipulation: The Use and Abuse of Psychological Trickery by Sapir Handelman

tradition: classical liberalism and modern liberalism. Each school presents a monistic ethical world view; that is, an ethical perception that centers around one specific core value. The principal value in the classical tradition is liberty, which means lack of coercion in the physical sense. The core value in the modern school is autonomy, which means the ability to choose freely and independently.
    Manipulation intends to influence the target’s autonomy without limiting his liberty in the physical sense. The classical school does not leave any room for discussing the ethical aspects of manipulation. The modern school views any kind of manipulation as wrong. Classical liberals, like Friedrich Hayek, argue that liberty and responsibility are inseparable values. In the marketplace, any individual should be responsible for his choices and actions. It is a woman’s private matter to believe soap can make her hands more beautiful.
    Modern liberals, like Joseph Raz, argue that freedom and liberty have meaning only if human beings know what to do with them. Manipulative behavior, which is an uninvited interference in another’s decision-making, distorts the normal process of discovering, forming, and realizing preferences and priorities. Manipulation, according to Raz, intrudes on the individual’s mental freedom and damages the process of self-creation. Therefore, making someone believe that a bar of soap with skin cream has magical cosmetic powers is indecent. It intends to turn women into soap consumers from false and subjective considerations. In general, the whole idea of manipulating people to develop a consumerist lifestyle is necessarily indecent.
    It seems that the different views on the ethics of manipulation result from different emphasis. Raz the modern liberal speaks about the intentions of the manipulator, while Hayek of the classical school indicates that the responsibility of the target to his behavior in the interaction should be a major concern.
    The two extreme approaches immediately bring to mind the question of free choice in a manipulative interaction. It would be interesting to ask Raz if the future manipulator always chooses to manipulate from an adequate range of options. Maybe there are problematic situations that compel a person to take the role of the manipulator. The relevant question to Hayek is related to the target’s freedom of choice: Is the target always responsible for his behavior in a manipulative interaction? Is there a possibility that he operates under the influence of irresistible incentives?
    Social life is complex, unpredictable, and not always fair. In almost any social interaction there are failures and successes and weak agents and strong agents. It seems that Raz’s total disapproval of manipulative behavior is not sensitive to the disadvantaged in society, those people whose problems are overlooked and who may need to use manipulative means to get their voices heard. Is it acceptable to condemn any kind of manipulation, when sometimes a person needs manipulation as a strategy to draw the minimum awareness to his misfortune? The position of the classical school is no less problematic. The responsibility that Hayek projects onto the individual seems to be too much of an over-statement. Is it accurate to say that any sufferer of manipulation who clearly acts against his best interests is fully responsible for his behavior?
    There is no doubt that manipulation is a multifaceted phenomenon that can appear in almost infinite variations. From the manipulator’s position, it can be the last resort of the disadvantaged in society and it can also appear as a powerful weapon of the conspirator. From the target’s standpoint, manipulation can motivate by using incentives that seems to be irresistible, and it can offer a sweet fantasy to people who easily forget the meaning of responsibility. The problem of free choice in a manipulative interaction can be summarized by one clear question: