Philosophical Discussion of Manipulation

"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

. . .
d an end. If there is one trait that Man has which no other animal possesses it is a conscience. The example of the strong manipulating, mauling and eating the weak is Nature, not Morality. Manipulation is acceptable for a stage magician, or a video game player. Sleight of hand is permissible, sleight of character is not. It is not acceptable as a means of hurdling over opposition to reach your intended goal first. We live in a manipulative age where professional football coaches go down in history by proclaiming: "Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." This is what we teach our children. Manipulating which child plays or does not play, often depends not on the coach but on the parent's influence. We cannot use as a goal the happiness of others when we see them as opponents, as threats, as obstacles over which we must climb. If we are truly a logical and reasonable species (for the most part, of course) then we need to observe Kant's admonition that if happiness of others is an end, "reasonaabsolutely commands him to do it, and makes this end his duty, in order that he may be worthy of the humanity that dwells within him." (Kant 1952 370) If we acknowledge our humanity and our responsibility to others thereby, we will onl
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Virtue Kant, Morality Manipulation, Objection Mankind, Tae Kwon, Conclusion Descartes', Allah JehovahIn, Joseph McCarthy, Press Introduction, Hippocratic Oath, Happiness Kant, kant 1952, justify means, yes sometimes, transgression sin, idea manipulating, 1952 370, kant 1952 370,
Approximate Word count = 1250
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Philosophical Discussion of Manipulation