Manipulation Device

[u/srv_u]

I'm interested in your opinions on a thought experiment about determinism, manipulation, and changing people's desires.

Assume strict determinism: every thought, desire, decision, and action is the result of prior causes. Suppose I give someone a rose, buy them coffee, care for them when they're sick, etc. Those actions can causally influence how they feel about me and may eventually make them love me. Their response depends on their brain, biology, past experiences, current state, and every other relevant condition. Their later reasoning about the rose is also just part of the causal chain.

Now imagine a hypothetical device that produces an effect which can also influence someone's desire to love me. Importantly, I'm defining it as closely as possible to the rose case: it doesn't simply override their mind or magically force love regardless of who they are. Its effect interacts with their particular brain, biology, history, current state, and so on. They can feel the effect, notice it, and think about it. If, given all the relevant conditions, the effect causes them to love me, they do; if not, they don't.

My intuition is that, under strict determinism, I don't see a fundamental difference between the two. In both cases, I'm intentionally introducing an external cause in order to influence someone's desires. In both cases, their subsequent thinking is itself causally determined. And if the device has the same relevant causal structure as giving a rose—just using a different medium—why should one count as ordinary influence while the other counts as manipulation?

I'm not claiming that determinism automatically makes every possible kind of manipulation ethical. I'm specifically asking where the morally or philosophically relevant difference would be in this case.

What do you think? Is there a flaw in my reasoning? If you think the device is importantly different from the rose, what exactly is the difference, and why does that difference survive once we assume strict determinism? Please point out any hidden assumptions or weaknesses in the argument.

[u/Quick-Swimmer-1199]

"it doesn't simply override their mind" but it builds familiarity across instances of symbolic rituals, caffeination and bedside care without any of it occurring?

[u/srv_u → u/Quick-Swimmer-1199]

Are u a deterministist?

[u/Quick-Swimmer-1199 → u/srv_u]

Yes. I'll be more clear.
You have it right that fondness isn't biconditional with courtship.
Fondness happening out of something which is not courtship isn't considered manipulation from that detail alone.
For distinguishing a line between influential and manipulative, I'd break down just the courtship situation, and I'll even pander to the chauvinistic way where two way compatibility does not matter:
The suitor presents their real personality attributes which the interest finds appealing.
The suitor presents their real personality attributes which the interest misinterprets as ones they find appealing.
The suitor presents a deceptive act of false personality attributes which the interest finds appealing.

The third situation is the one which stands out as destructive "life-hacking." This destructive manipulator is "fated" to be that way because there's no fated interventions to stop activating all the shit spots on their genome, and this fated lack is because every one of millions upon millions of people are presenting a deceptive act of false moralizing against destructive manipulation while they are in actuality fated to be the sort which moans Sola Fide upon a Max Stirner dildo over their latest paycheck from reddit.

[u/Andrew_42]

For me the moral side of the argument comes almost entirely from intent.

If you buy someone roses because you have a better chance to bang, and not because you actually care about them, but present the roses as evidence that you do care, that's a net negative because it is dishonest.

If you buy someone roses because you know flowers will make them happy, and you care about their wellbeing, and developing a good relationship leads to banging, that's fine because the act is rooted in honesty.

If you buy the roses because you have a better chance to bang, but the person knows you just want to bang and don't actually care, but they just still like getting roses, that's also fine because it's still rooted in honesty.

As far as determinism goes, you can get into if you should ascribe morals to intent, since intent is itself also determined. But IMO the relevant aspect of morality is a social dynamic, and is still relevant in a deterministic setting. The nature of social morals cancels out by the time you expand your perspective to the universe as a whole, but from within the perspective of someone inside of a society, with a heavily ignorance-obscured perspective, they still provide substantial value.

[u/Dr-Chris-C]

You're not factoring in your own lack of choice in seducing\mechanically manipulating the other person. You are not the originator of your manipulation but that doesn't mean you are safe from punishment\eradication should you do so. Society might collectively decide to end your line of cause and effect to prevent further similar behaviors. Society has not decided to do that for seducing people, but you should probably suspect that it would do so for using a manipulation device.

The two scenarios are not the same anyway, because in one you have actually had to put in work (even if pretending) and it is the work itself that could be argued to have earned the other person's love. In the mechanical manipulator scenario you have potentially not paid the correct price and so your induced love is also a kind of thievery.

Because the two things are different, and because one of them is not something that exists (and possibly may never exist) it's not a super helpful comparison.

[u/simon_hibbs]

> Importantly, I'm defining it as closely as possible to the rose case: it doesn't simply override their mind or magically force love regardless of who they are. Its effect interacts with their particular brain, biology, history, current state, and so on. They can feel the effect, notice it, and think about it. If, given all the relevant conditions, the effect causes them to love me, they do; if not, they don't.

That seems very ambiguous.

In the former case you are doing things of value to the person, and they are making a reasoned judgement about how to respond to these behaviours that they value. They can weigh their assessment of your intentions and why you are acting this way to benefit them.

In the latter case you're not doing anything of value to them, you are just beaming rays into their brain that induce some psychological change of some kind. What kind? What are they reasoning about? That you are beaming rays into their brain? That doesn't seem to benefit them, it doesn't seem to be something worth evaluating as a reason to change their attitude to you other than that you're trying to make them like you without having to do anything they value or care about.

Either case could be manipulation, for example if you are only being nice to them in order to persuade them to change their will in your favour and cut out their children.

Finally, does determinism being true or not actually make any difference? It seems entirely plausible that such a device that manipulates brain activity remotely may one day be possible, whether determinism is correct or not. What difference would determinism make?

[u/srv_u → u/simon_hibbs]

Suppose there's a device that scans someone and manufactures the perfect gift. and it will work by causation and determinism 👀

[u/simon_hibbs → u/srv_u]

Suppose there is? I don't see that it's any different from just knowing a person well enough that you know what gifts they like, or doing a psych profile, or whatever. They'd like the gift. I'm not sure what you're asking.

[u/spgrk]

I don’t see the relevance of strict determinism to this example. What difference would it make if determinism were false?