Content area
Abstract
Persuasion and coercion are types of influence. Persuasion is commonly considered to be morally justifiable, while coercion is considered to be unethical and morally justified only in limited types of circumstances. The evidence for a claim that some action or situation is coercive or persuasive is therefore evaluated in different ways depending on many contextual variables, chief among these are moral considerations. Claims and counter claims of coercion and persuasion are made by embodied speakers within a particular history and context, which may include conflicting ethical systems. The distinctions between the concepts of persuasion and coercion have long been argued in the philosophical literature, and since the 1930s the methods of empirical science have been used to study the processes of influencing others. This paper reviews the philosophical approach and the empirical approach to distinguishing persuasion from coercion and provides evidence for the claim that the difference between persuasion and coercion is not precise or self-evident, and that definitions differ with regard to time, place, language, participants and culture. Critical questions implicit in these approaches are included in each section. The paper discusses the implications this review poses for ethicists.