(Source: Kant, Immanuel: "To the Metaphysical Elements of Ethics" (1952) Chicago: Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 42 University of Chicago Press)
"No moral principle is based on any feelingawhich inheres in every man's reasoning faculty" (Kant 1952 366). It would seem, therefore, that the manipulation of one man by another, or a group of men by another, seems to be considered immoral, or less than moral, since the idea of manipulation is the assumption of some sort of power over others. Virtue, is what Kant states, is the term for opposing and resisting immorality within us. Why does a man manipulate others? Either for power, for greed, for some sort of financial or political gain- an edge over others. Kant feels that ethics "may be defined as the system of the ends of the pure practical reason. The two parts of moral philosophy are distinguished as treating respectively of ends and duties of constraint" (Kant 1952 367).
Manipulation is one means to an end, of course. In some cases it could be considered the strong overpowering the weak. This brings into question not merely the motives of the manipulator but the results of his manipulation. Does the end justify the means? Should there be some sort of morality that provides that feeling of guilt for the manipulator? The fact is that, no matter what the Bible says, the meek shall not inherit the earth, despite their overwhelming numbers. It is as true in the animal kingdom as it is in the human race. The strong subdue and eat the weak. The weak do the same to the weaker. And the weaker do it to the weakest. It is not a matter of ethics or degradation. It is a matter of survival. It is important, within Mankind, to differentiate between the thoroughly immoral and the manipulative strengths put in place to gain an advantage. An executive spreads rumors about the work of a rival. The rival loses the promotion. That is immoral. Another businessman creates extra opportu...